Gotcha Style Straw Man Tactics call your Integrity and Critical Thinking into Question

Summary:

Just noticed your Jenkins/Zap comments and while I'm amused and flattered at the attention as an English teacher and debate coach I can't help but to point out that it is an obvious example of inferior rhetoric.

Gotcha Style Straw Man Tactics call your Integrity and Critical Thinking into Question

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 14:51

Just noticed your Jenkins/Zap comments and while I'm amused and flattered at the attention as an English teacher and debate coach I can't help but to point out that it is an obvious example of inferior rhetoric. If you're honest with yourself it should be apparent that you have followed the classic gotcha style straw man technique: search someone's voluminous writings and look for a few things out of context that will make them seem like a straw man you can knock down. What you have done is one of the most obvious examples of this technique to be found anywhere and anyone who would take the time to actually read my writings or John's at length would discover that. Specifically, you would also discover that both of us have made substantial contributions to debunking 2012 misinformation. For example, here is my most recent contribution to that endeavor: http://www.zaporacle.com/carnival-2012-a-psychological-study-of-the-2012-phenomenon-and-the-22-classic-pitfalls-and-blind-spots-of-esoteric-research/

What also shows poor character and cheap rhetoric is the ad hominem attack on John because he has used psychotropics. If your argument is strong you differ with the content of what a speaker/writer says, not their lifestyle or extraneous factors. Many people who have produced brilliant work have been inspired through psychotropics. An example is the astronomer Carl Sagan who was frequently inspired by marijuana according to his widow. Would you advocate discrediting Sagan's astronomical work because some of it was inspired by his use of an hallucinogen? I would be very interested in your specific answer to that question.

I'll be happy to engage anyone who cares to respond who has also carefully ready every word of my Carnival 2012 piece so I know that they are actually familiar with my work on this subject and not just looking to create a straw man projection. In my experience, there is something unpleasantly hollow about those who need to create straw men.

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 15:03

Sagan was a user and advocate of marijuana. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he contributed an essay about smoking cannabis to the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered.[45][46] The essay explained that marijuana use had helped to inspire some of Sagan's works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences. After Sagan's death, his friend Lester Grinspoon disclosed this information to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. The publishing of the biography, Carl Sagan: A Life, in 1999 brought media attention to this aspect of Sagan's life.[47][48][49] source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

Re: Gotcha Style Straw Man Tactics call your Integrity and Critical Thinking into Question

obaeyens 08 Jan 2011 15:32

I cannot understand anything you write in your blog. You play with words, making it as confusing as possible to explain what you say.

So some questions:

• Do you think 2012 is a hoax or is it true?
• Do you think if 2012 is something astronomical, something imaginary and spiritual, or just signs of insanity?
• Your wordplay give the impression that you use science: You use science words for none science explanation.

The core of 2012 is like the nucleus of an atom, it contains most of the mass, but it is minuscule in volume compared to the shell or cloud of electrons that surround it in uncollapsed probability waves.

• Again you are playing wordplay obscuring the fact that this happens every year on that date and to make it worse it also happens for hundreds of years just a different day :

The most crucial thing that John discovered is that the Maya apparently intended this date to roughly correspond with a rare, optical, galactic alignment: “…the alignment of the December solstice sun with the dark rift in the Milky Way” (The 2012 Story, 140) .

Re: Gotcha Style Straw Man Tactics call your Integrity and Critical Thinking into Question

obaeyens 08 Jan 2011 15:53

Just one scientific note:

The core of 2012 is like the nucleus of an atom, it contains most of the mass, but it is minuscule in volume compared to the shell or cloud of electrons that surround it in uncollapsed probability waves.

And uncollapse probability wave means that it encompass the entire universe.
A collapsed probability wave means that it is within a short radius.

So your explanation says that the core of 2012 is basically zero when read scientifically.

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 15:14

Oh, and in a very general way, calling into question, in a very general way, the character of those who engage ad hominem attack is not a tautology or self-contradiction—-it is the obvious observation about those who initiate this type of poor rhetoric.

TheGreatJuju 08 Jan 2011 15:47

If you're honest with yourself it should be apparent that you have followed the classic gotcha style straw man technique: search someone's voluminous writings and look for a few things out of context that will make them seem like a straw man you can knock down. What you have done is one of the most obvious examples of this technique to be found anywhere and anyone who would take the time to actually read my writings or John's at length would discover that.

Then surely you should be able to point out exactly where this occurs.

For example, here is my most recent contribution to that endeavor:

As "an English teacher and debate coach," surely you realize that "substantial contributions to debunking 2012 misinformation" are not a prima facie absolution of anything else you say or write.

What also shows poor character and cheap rhetoric is the ad hominem attack on John because he has used psychotropics.

As "an English teacher and debate coach," surely you realize that, at no point, was John Major Jenkins ever declared wrong on the basis of his drug use. If citing a fact, in your view, is tantamount to a colloquial attack on the man, then I'll grant you that context, with the caveat that it is problematic when included with accusations of other specific errors in reasoning (i.e. "the classic gotcha style straw man technique"). As it is, noting Jenkins' drug use is not a fallacy, but a simple observation. What the reader takes from this information is his/her own prerogative. Ergo, I'm not sure that your complaint in this regard has any merit.

I'll be happy to engage anyone who cares to respond who has also carefully ready every word of my Carnival 2012 piece so I know that they are actually familiar with my work on this subject and not just looking to create a straw man projection. In my experience, there is something unpleasantly hollow about those who need to create straw men.

It is fittingly ironic that you refer to both "projection" and "straw men." I request again that you make some effort to identify the exact fallacy and purportedly out-of-context remarks that drove you to post here.

Sagan was a user and advocate of marijuana.

Incidentally, Carl Sagan never invoked magical forces, indistinguishable from his imagination, and then attributed them to his marijuana use. Are you contending that weed and hard hallucinogens lead to comparable experiences?

Oh, and in a very general way, calling into question, in a very general way, the character of those who engage ad hominem attack is not a tautology or self-contradiction—-it is the obvious observation about those who initiate this type of poor rhetoric.

Of course, but your complaint remains empty since, at no point, is Jenkins declared wrong on the basis of his drug use.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Last edited on 08 Jan 2011 15:51 by TheGreatJuju Show more

bikenbeer2000 08 Jan 2011 15:59

search someone's voluminous writings and look for a few things out of context that will make them seem like a straw man you can knock down

I refer you to Wikipedia (the italics are mine):

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

This is not the same as your claim that it is wrong to attack proposition 'A' because propositions 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E' are acceptable. If you make a questionable claim, you can expect to be called out on it.

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 16:28

Here's a classic example of your straw man technique, in one of your posts you refer to me as "a so-called dream worker." This is the technique of creating a flakey, goofy sounding label to put in front of someone who in actuality has numerous academic credentials and other evidences of seriousness. This very same technique was used in the Peter Jennings ABC documentary on UFOlogy wherein they referred to Stanton Friedman as "a UFO promoter." Here are some of Stanton's actual credentials: "Nuclear physicist for such companies as General Electric, General Motors, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas where he worked on advanced, classified programs on nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and compact nuclear power plants for space applications." So that's what I mean by straw man technique and you are guilty of intellectual malpractice for employing it. But this is my last response unless you can certify that you have read every word of Carnival 2012 so that I know I am engaging with someone who has actually confronted my work.

TheGreatJuju 08 Jan 2011 16:58

Here's a classic example of your straw man technique, in one of your posts you refer to me as "a so-called dream worker." This is the technique of creating a flakey, goofy sounding label to put in front of someone who in actuality has numerous academic credentials and other evidences of seriousness.

This must be what has you so upset:

"A significant shift in our opinion on John Major Jenkins has occurred due to the receipt of additional information linking Jenkins to Jonathan Zap, a so-called 'Dream Worker', and a close friend of Jenkins. Jenkins wholeheartedly supports Zaps bizarre opinion that people who oppose Jenkins on the 2012 issues are 'mind parasites' and 'energy vampires'.

Have you ever labeled yourself a "dream worker," or has Jenkins done so? Do any of your claimed credentials have anything to do with you referring to Jenkins' opponents as "mind parasites" and "energy vampires?" Would noting that you are "an English teacher and debate coach" change the meaning of that paragraph in any way? Let's see.

"A significant shift in our opinion on John Major Jenkins has occurred due to the receipt of additional information linking Jenkins to Jonathan Zap, an English teacher, debate coach, so-called 'Dream Worker', and a close friend of Jenkins. Jenkins wholeheartedly supports Zaps bizarre opinion that people who oppose Jenkins on the 2012 issues are 'mind parasites' and 'energy vampires'.

I'm not clear on what your problem is.

This very same technique was used in the Peter Jennings ABC documentary on UFOlogy wherein they referred to Stanton Friedman as "a UFO promoter." Here are some of Stanton's actual credentials: "Nuclear physicist for such companies as General Electric, General Motors, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas where he worked on advanced, classified programs on nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and compact nuclear power plants for space applications."

Stanton Friedman is "a UFO promoter," and none of the credentials you listed are particularly relevant to his UFO claims.

So that's what I mean by straw man technique…

Even if that accurately describes what has been done on this website (and it does not), it's not a straw-man. In order to make the case for a straw-man having been built and attacked, you need to specifically point out where you and/or Mr. Jenkins have been misrepresented. See the first segment of this reply.

…and you are guilty of intellectual malpractice for employing it.

Who is "you?" The person who wrote that has yet to even post in this thread.

Also, nope.

But this is my last response unless you can certify that you have read every word of Carnival 2012 so that I know I am engaging with someone who has actually confronted my work.

So, lacking any ability to defend your initial accusations, you run away. Now where have I seen that before?

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

(account deleted) 08 Jan 2011 17:11

Here's another "gotcha" for you, Mr. Zap. You just said,

Here's a classic example of your straw man technique, in one of your posts you refer to me as "a so-called dream worker." This is the technique of creating a flakey, goofy sounding label to put in front of someone who in actuality has numerous academic credentials and other evidences of seriousness.

However, we did not "create" that label. I quote from the testimonials that you display prominently on your web page:

Testimonials:
Rob Brezsny , author, visionary, and musician whose syndicated column appears in more than 200 newspapers says “My friend Jonathan Zap has created the Zap Oracle, a source you can use to do divinations for yourself. Because he has such a cagey, interesting, and holy mind, I trust the spirit behind his oracles."
Rob also endorses Jonathan's dream interpretation service. In his weekly newsletter he wrote:
"Jonathan Zap, Visionary Philosopher and Dream Worker Extraordinaire. The best dream worker I've ever known.
Over the years, I've had the pleasure of working on my dreams with some fine dream workers, but recently I discovered the best ever. His name is Jonathan Zap.

---

"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain

Last edited on 08 Jan 2011 18:36 by (account deleted) Show more

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 16:35

Until you've done the homework to know what my position on 2012 is you have no business calling me out on it. Otherwise you certainly engage the very strawman definition you quote above since your stereotype of me is the substitute for actually engagement with my work. Also, since you didn't specifically respond to my point about Sagan I'm assuming you acknowledge the fallaciousness of your critique of Jenkins for hallucinogen use. Let me know when you've read Carnival 2012 in its entirety and I'll be happy to engage more.

obaeyens 08 Jan 2011 17:05

Until you've done the homework to know what my position on 2012 is you have no business calling me out on it

Then tell me what is your position?
You site is so with wordplay that we have no clue what you are actually claiming.
I already asked those questions above, you did not respond yet.

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 16:55

Just noticed you added something on Sagan. Your qualifier seems like sophistry to me and insincere. What you are saying is that it would be legitimate if someone were to write, for example, "Gore Vidal, andadmitted homosexual, makes several invalid points in his analysis of global politics." If you point out something completely extraneous like that before critiquing other aspects of someone's work it immediately calls your integrity into question and is a case of rhetorical and intellectual malpractice. If you bring up such factors, the burden is on you to demonstrate the relevance. If you can't demonstrate relevance, then you have failed the test of rhetorical integrity.

TheGreatJuju 08 Jan 2011 17:18

Until you've done the homework to know what my position on 2012 is you have no business calling me out on it.

It seems to me that you are completely lacking legitimate complaints, but are rather upset simply because you are portrayed unfavorably, even though you haven't bothered to challenge the accuracy of what was written.

Also, since you didn't specifically respond to my point about Sagan I'm assuming you acknowledge the fallaciousness of your critique of Jenkins for hallucinogen use.

Incidentally, Carl Sagan never invoked magical forces, indistinguishable from his imagination, and then attributed them to his marijuana use. Are you contending that weed and hard hallucinogens lead to comparable experiences? -Me

You are aware that more than one person has responded to you here, aren't you?

Just noticed you added something on Sagan. Your qualifier seems like sophistry to me and insincere.

My comments on Sagan were present in the first draft on my post. I did not "[add]" them, and you can use the History feature to verify this.

Can you point out any point in Sagan's career when he invoked magical forces, indistinguishable from his imagination, and then attributed them to his marijuana use? If not, how is my point "sophistry" and "insincere?"

What you are saying is that it would be legitimate if someone were to write, for example, "Gore Vidal, andadmitted homosexual, makes several invalid points in his analysis of global politics."

Except nothing of that form appears on this website. Jenkins drug use, by his admission, was central to the development of his positions. It would be irresponsible to not mention this.

If you point out something completely extraneous like that…

It isn't extraneous, and at no point is Jenkins' drug use used to claim he is wrong.

…before critiquing other aspects of someone's work

Only the final two sections of the John Major Jenkins page deal with his drug use, and it is dealt with in moderate depth because it was quite clearly important relative to the claims he would eventually make.

…it immediately calls your integrity into question and is a case of rhetorical and intellectual malpractice.

Do you deny that it might be intellectually prudent to question the mystical claims of someone who developed his ideas while in an altered state?

If you bring up such factors, the burden is on you to demonstrate the relevance.

Jenkins used psilocybin mushrooms extensively during the 1990s, during the period when he was doing the research for his “magnum opus”, Maya Cosmogenesis 2012. He appears to attribute to drug use, his “blazing new revelation[s] about how the Maya encoded the galactic alignment of 2012 into their various institutions”.

Jenkins maintains that with the aid of hallucinogens, the ancient Maya were able to perform feats far beyond humankind's present technology, and to communicate with beings from other times and levels of existence. Therefore, Jenkins recommends that modern heads of state avail themselves of hallucinogens for decision-making. To the average person, Jenkins offers suggestions for several easily-cultivated hallucinogenic plants.

In his latest book, The 2012 Story, Jenkins draws a clear distinction between LSD and other hallucinogens. He says that all human beings should have some direct experience (with proper guidance) of "sacred plants", which he defines as "psychoactive tools of shamanism such as peyote, psilocybin mushrooms, [and] ergot". In contrast, of LSD he says, “I don't advocate LSD use or suggest that [his own experiment in the isolation tank] be repeated”.

http://www.2012hoax.org/john-major-jenkins

If you can't demonstrate relevance, then you have failed the test of rhetorical integrity.

You have failed the test of having anything substantive to say. By all appearances, you are here because you are upset at the realization that your own behavior and statements have made you appear foolish. That isn't this website's fault. It's yours.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Last edited on 08 Jan 2011 17:24 by TheGreatJuju Show more

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 17:23

Since you're posting without actually reading my published work on 2012 you are engaged in a self-referential dialogue with your self. Get back to me when you've done your homework.

TheGreatJuju 08 Jan 2011 17:27

Since you're posting without actually reading my published work on 2012 you are engaged in a self-referential dialogue with your self. Get back to me when you've done your homework.

Seeing how seven of the posts in this thread so far are yours, I don't think so. Nonetheless, you don't know if I've read your material. I'm responding to what you have written here, accusing the contributors to this website of fallacies, not what you might have written elsewhere.

It's pretty clear at this point that you have no legitimate complaint about 2012Hoax, only a wounded ego.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

obaeyens 08 Jan 2011 17:28

Get back to me when you've done your homework.

I repeat.
Then tell me what is your position?
You site is so with wordplay that we have no clue what you are actually claiming. It basically unreadable.
I already asked those questions above, you did not respond yet.

obaeyens 08 Jan 2011 17:30

I also showed that this quote at your site

The core of 2012 is like the nucleus of an atom, it contains most of the mass, but it is minuscule in volume compared to the shell or cloud of electrons that surround it in uncollapsed probability waves.

Technically this means that you say that 2012 prove is basically zero.

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 17:39

Talk about wounded ego, anyone who wants to investigate who is shooting from the hip can perform a very simple test by reading http://www.zaporacle.com/carnival-2012-a-psychological-study-of-the-2012-phenomenon-and-the-22-classic-pitfalls-and-blind-spots-of-esoteric-research/ and see if it is "unreadable" if it isn't then you'll know what I'm dealing with here. As far as running away, read Carnival 2012 and then I'll be happy to meet any of you face-to-face to discuss the ideas. If you can't figure out what I'm claiming about 2012 by reading the above then it's time for you to get a tutor in English. I'm sure you'll try to go through that essay and pull some quote out of context for a gotcha which will only illustrate my earlier points. Anyone wanting to evaluate the claims and counterclaims should read the entire document and then they will be welcome to engage me.

obaeyens 08 Jan 2011 17:45

If you can't figure out what I'm claiming about 2012 by reading the above then it's time for you to get a tutor in English.

Why do you assume that I am native English?
And you are avoiding the question.

Lets start simple, the first question:

• Do you think 2012 is a hoax or is it true?

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 17:57

Is it hoax or is it true indicates absolutist thinking see: http://www.zaporacle.com/dynamic-paradoxicalism-the-anti-ism-ism/ for a critique of absolutist thinking. 2012 is both a hoax and it's true as an artifact of the Mayan Long Count calendar. If you're not natively English then don't accuse an experienced writer/English teacher with degrees in English of unreadabilty——get someone competent with the language to help you understand the Carnival 2012 document, all the answers to what I think about 2012 are there and are very explicitly spelled out.

obaeyens 08 Jan 2011 18:12

2012 is both a hoax and it's true as an artifact of the Mayan Long Count calendar.

So translated: nothing will happen on 21 Dec 2012, it is just an artefact just like we have the end of the year artefact on 31 December 1999?

If you're not natively English then don't accuse an experienced writer/English teacher with degrees in English of unreadabilty

So your blog is intended only for experienced intelligent English adults?
You do realize that even native English people would probably stop reading your blog after 10 lines because it is so full of wordplay. You are limiting your audience severely.

Also change this:

The core of 2012 is like the nucleus of an atom, it contains most of the mass, but it is minuscule in volume compared to the shell or cloud of electrons that surround it in uncollapsed probability waves.

The core of 2012 is like the nucleus of an atom, it contains most of the mass, but it is minuscule in volume compared to the shell or cloud of electrons that surround it in uncollapsed probability waves.

The first one means there is zero facts of 2012, the second one means there is a tiny bit of evidence.

TheGreatJuju 08 Jan 2011 17:50

Talk about wounded ego, anyone who wants to investigate who is shooting from the hip can perform a very simple test by reading http://www.zaporacle.com/carnival-2012-a-psychological-study-of-the-2012-phenomenon-and-the-22-classic-pitfalls-and-blind-spots-of-esoteric-research/ and see if it is "unreadable" if it isn't then you'll know what I'm dealing with here.

I repeat, you are aware that more than one person has responded to you here, right?

As far as running away, read Carnival 2012 and then I'll be happy to meet any of you face-to-face to discuss the ideas.

My only interest right now is dealing with the accusations you've made in this thread, and I think it's clear to anyone at this stage that you can't actually point out wrongdoing on the part of any 2012Hoax contributors.

If you can't figure out what I'm claiming about 2012 by reading the above then it's time for you to get a tutor in English.

I repeat, you are aware that more than one person has responded to you here, right?

Also, it's pretty irrational, and more than a little rude, to recommend someone to an English tutor simply because he finds your writing incoherent.

I'm sure you'll try to go through that essay and pull some quote out of context for a gotcha which will only illustrate my earlier points.

Seeing how you have no historical precedent on which to base this, I'm not sure what led you to post it, outside of literally having nothing to offer here other than unsubstantiated accusations.

Anyone wanting to evaluate the claims and counterclaims should read the entire document and then they will be welcome to engage me.

You keep saying that, and you keep refusing to defend your accusations, managing only to repeatedly assert them.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Last edited on 08 Jan 2011 17:52 by TheGreatJuju Show more

Cameron (guest) 08 Jan 2011 18:00

Some of the author's first languages or not english. You are good at playing with words in your writing style, making it barely legible outside of your own mind. However, from what I could understand I can't say I disagree with everything you mention in the link. Pretty much, 2012 is nothing more than another year. If you want to claim there is a rare alignment, then so be it…but this site has shown that to not be the case by scientific method and data. If you want to dispute this, then I'm sure many of the authors would have fun tearing the claim apart again.

Please don't forget the intention of this website. To clear things up for those who are scared of the 2012 date. Mostly children can benefit from this site, and many adults who want to know they have the opportunity to live the rest of their lives. JMJ has done some good things, and I don't doubt that…but he has also attributed to the meme by giving it a significance that just isn't so.

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 18:04

Yes, there's more than one person responding and so I will respond to any of the contributors who can begin their post with an acknowledgement that they've read Carnival 2012 in its entirety. My accusation that you used straw man stereotyping of me requires no additional defense. Anyone who wants to evaluate that can compare your characterization of me and then go to my site zaporacle.com and read my work, especially the documents linked in this exchange and evaluate for themselves.

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 18:29

I your intention is, as you state, to clear away misinformation about 2012 and especially the silly doomsday aspects, then I applaud your intention. If your intention is serious, however, I should think this site ought to be encouraging people to read Jenkin's 2012 Story as well as my Carnival 2012 essay which are fulfillments of this intention.

TheGreatJuju 08 Jan 2011 18:59

Yes, there's more than one person responding and so I will respond to any of the contributors who can begin their post with an acknowledgement that they've read Carnival 2012 in its entirety.

Whether I've read it or not, I'm not here to discuss "Carnival 2012." I'm here to deal with your accusations, and I think your [in]ability to defend them was crystal clear several posts ago. You've been presented with several counters and questions, yet the extent of your argumentation abilities seems limited to bald assertion (which, for a "debate coach," is pretty shameful).

My accusation that you used straw man stereotyping of me requires no additional defense.

No additional defense? But you didn't defend it at all. You just asserted it. Your small bit of elaboration serves only to suggest you don't even know what a straw man is.

Anyone who wants to evaluate that can compare your characterization of me and then go to my site zaporacle.com and read my work, especially the documents linked in this exchange and evaluate for themselves.

My characterization of you is that you accused a 2012Hoax contributor or contributors of attacking a straw-man and taking you and/or Jenkins out of context. And the more your post, the more is becomes apparent that your understanding of logic and argumentation leaves some to be desired.

I your intention is, as you state, to clear away misinformation about 2012 and especially the silly doomsday aspects, then I applaud your intention. If your intention is serious, however, I should think this site ought to be encouraging people to read Jenkin's 2012 Story as well as my Carnival 2012 essay which are fulfillments of this intention.

You're as free to post links here as anyone else. But again, "substantial contributions to debunking 2012 misinformation" are not a prima facie absolution of anything else you say or write.

If you want to make claims in defense of your ideas or those of Jenkins, great. Make a new thread in the appropriate section and do so. But you apparently didn't come here to do that. You're here to make accusations that you can't even support, because everything you want to object to is 100% true, but it makes you look bad. So now you've resorted to pouting, asserting your accusations instead of justifying them, and trying to get someone — anyone — to engage you about your essay, in desperate hopes that we'll you let you slide on backing up your initial remarks.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Last edited on 08 Jan 2011 19:00 by TheGreatJuju Show more

Do you admit your accusation about making up the "dream worker" label was wrong?

(account deleted) 08 Jan 2011 18:48

Do you admit, yet, that you were wrong when you said that we "created" the label "dream worker"? See above.

Also, please provide a link showing where we've criticized any of you views on 2012. We do, however, note your very interesting diagnoses of "energy vampires", and your very professional, academic attacks upon Steve Tonkin. See here.

And while you're at it, look up our material on the argument techniques called "straw man" and "red herring".

---

"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 19:13

The term you used was "so-called dream worker" and anyone can read that full phrase and see the obvious intention and implication-to stereotype me as some New Age flake. Anyone who could find that phrase on my site could read the biographical page and see that dream interpretation is just one of many things that I do. A more neutral or appropriate descriptor would therefore be "author" or "philosopher" Jonathan Zap which doesn't credit me with being a good author or philosopher, but avoids obvious straw man stereotyping. As far as my remarks on Steve Tonkin, the context was a personal email to John Jenkins and I had no idea it would be published. Whether my originally private remarks about him are warranted or not is easy for anyone to validate for themselves—since my email was published I included a larger excerpt of it in Carnival 2012 as well as the link to the original exchange between Jenkins and Tonkin wherein Tonkin referred to John as "you people," etc.

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 19:24

Don't know why some of the above came through with strikethrough, software glitch somewhere I suppose. Also, references to my work on "mind parasites," "energy vampires" seem also to have the intention of stereotyping a vast body of work. Anyone who wants to determine for themselves whether my work on that subject has any validity can go to my site and choose the "mind parasite" category and read the associated documents beginning with the introductory essay: http://www.zaporacle.com/mind-parasites-energy-parasites-and-vampires/ If you don't have time to read it there is the Mind Parasite Matrix available as free MP3 and on coasttocoastam.com they probably have archived my three hour interview with George Noory and Alex Grey on the topic. Then you'll be understand what I mean by energy vampire which can be as mundane as someone who wastes your time by trying to engage you in unwanted conversation and/or drama.

Cameron (guest) 08 Jan 2011 19:40

Not a software glitch, just simple html coding….same as most forum based threads.

I am astounded by your persistence here. Your sitting at your computer attacking a website that is trying to do some good in this world, and fight the 2012 hoax just because you have a problem with…well I still don't know. Don't you think you could be visiting the thousands of other sites that have an opposing view that is actually doing damage to young minds? At least it would be productive, rather than coming here and raging at the people trying to help (and not really getting anywhere).

snorks 08 Jan 2011 19:52

Actually a great many students and instructors at the Grey School of Wizardy (Raven-Zell) know what you are talking about when it comes to various forms of vampires, parasites etc. What you have written is actually not that much different or new than what has already been written in the standard Neo-Pagan publishing world.

Actually your definition of energy vampire seems to fit this discussion. Why are you wasting your time and ours in unwanted drama. We want answers to direct questions, and get questions or ignored in the process.

TheGreatJuju 08 Jan 2011 20:00

The term you used was "so-called dream worker" and anyone can read that full phrase and see the obvious intention and implication-to stereotype me as some New Age flake.

Do you, or do you not, consider yourself a "dream worker?"

…but avoids obvious straw man stereotyping.

Except is isn't a straw man. A straw man requires a misrepresentation of the opponent's position. What kind of debate coach can't identify common fallacies?

Don't know why some of the above came through with strikethrough, software glitch somewhere I suppose.

No, this is a wiki. It uses wiki formatting tags. Putting -- on either side of a selection like this:

--blahblahblah--

…results in blahblahblah. If you want to insert a separator, you must insert a space:

-- blahblahblah -- blah

…which results in — blahblahblah — blah.

Also, references to my work on "mind parasites," "energy vampires" seem also to have the intention of stereotyping a vast body of work.

Did you, or did you not, refer to Jenkins' opponents as "mind parasites" and "energy vampires?"

Then you'll be understand what I mean by energy vampire which can be as mundane as someone who wastes your time by trying to engage you in unwanted conversation and/or drama.

You are engaging this entire board in unwanted conversation and drama. Despite repeatedly stating that you will not converse further without some acknowledgment that we have "read every word of Carnival 2012," you continue to post. It's slightly amusing, so I guess it's not entirely unwanted, but it's starting to get old.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Last edited on 08 Jan 2011 20:01 by TheGreatJuju Show more

(account deleted) 08 Jan 2011 21:07

Some direct answers to some direct questions, please:

1. For the second time: Do you concede that "dream worker" is the term you yourself use to describe one of your own occupations, and that we did not create it?

2. Do you concede that you have not been able to produce any example where 2012Hoax has criticized your own views on 2012?

2. How does our referring to you as a "so-called dream worker" make you look like a New-Age flake in any way that your self-description as a "dream worker" does not?

---

"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain

Re: Do you admit your accusation about making up the "dream worker" label was wrong?

elsgeorge 08 Jan 2011 19:18

Sounds like this dude just likes to hear himself talk!!

---

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 19:26

Thanks "elsgeorge" for another classic example of ad hominem attack.

obaeyens 08 Jan 2011 19:30

That depends. Do you like to hear yourself talk?

elsgeorge 08 Jan 2011 19:45

Not particularly, but I'm not doing much talking here either.

---

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare

obaeyens 08 Jan 2011 19:54

I was referring to the ad hominem claim.

You said: Sounds like this dude just likes to hear himself talk!!

You do not claim he does it, so in this case you are right because that is how you observer it.
It could also be that he really loves to hear himself talk. So in that case it is also not a hominem claim.

But if he does not like to hear himself talk, and you did not use the word "sound like" in your sentence then indeed it would be an ad hominem claim.

So it depends.
One can only be sure by asking it.

elsgeorge 08 Jan 2011 20:07

Gotcha!!! Gotta love logic and critical thinking :))

---

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare

elsgeorge 08 Jan 2011 19:43

You are very welcome, sir!!!

---

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
- Shakespeare

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 20:27

If you look at the word "just" the implication is that there is no content other than a desire to talk, a desire I presume almost all human beings have. The reason I have done more commenting is obviously because I'm responding to remarks from several people with questions, challenges, etc. directed toward me. Even though I'm an English teacher, I know that by the time we're parsing each other's sentences that useful dialogue has broken down. Most of these internet debates end that way, but I suggest a more positive resolution. If you guys are serious about debunking 2012 misinformation, then we have much common ground. I suggest, once again, a careful reading of Carnival 2012 and I think you will see the common ground. Also this essay covers some of the pitfalls and fallacies involved in falling into debunker mode. Instead of highlighting some few statements by John Jenkins you don't agree with (in Carnival 2012 I point out some of my areas of disagreement with him) why don't you engage his work for the invaluable assistance it can provide anyone who want to separate the wheat from the chaff with this topic? There are plenty of actual 2012 charlatans out there with unsavory motivations like the Horizon Project, etc. that people need to know about. I've never read any thinker who has a large body of work where I haven't found points of disagreement. The key question: Is this person some flake or charlatan that needs to be exposed, or is this a sincere, thoughtful person I don't see eye-to-eye with on every point? If some wanted to go through the thousands of pages of writings on my site, many of them personal and whimsical, the could find all sorts of thing to take out of context to make me look like whatever they want to. When that occasionally happens I don't take it personally because that is inevitable if you're going to put almost everything you think on the internet. If you are able to recognize that someone isn't a charlatan or complete flake than the useful approach is to recognize common ground as well as differences. I will be glad to respond to anyone who wants to seriously engage the content of Carnival 2012.

(account deleted) 08 Jan 2011 21:27

Instead of highlighting some few statements by John Jenkins you don't agree with (in Carnival 2012 I point out some of my areas of disagreement with him) why don't you engage his work for the invaluable assistance it can provide anyone who want to separate the wheat from the chaff with this topic?

As we have documented fully (see this article, and links therein),

1. JMJ's "Galactic Alignment" is mixture of blatant errors, half-truths, and knowingly misleading statements.

2. JMJ maintains, on his website, statements about the Galactic Alignment that he knows to be either false or meaningless.

3. JMJ claims to be an "Independent Investigator" while having a close relationship of mutual promotion with high-end tourism interests in Mesoamerica, including jade interests in Antigua, Guatemala.

The key question: Is [John Major Jenkins] some flake or charlatan that needs to be exposed, or is this a sincere, thoughtful person I don't see eye-to-eye with on every point?

JMJ describes you as his "reality-checker", so I assume you're aware of all the above. What part of it do you feel shouldn't be exposed?

From an earlier post of yours,

[W]hat I mean by energy vampire which can be as mundane as someone who wastes your time by trying to engage you in unwanted conversation …

Are you suggesting that when Jenkins Jenkins referred "Tom B" to you for a diagnosis of being an energy vampire, Jenkins just wanted you to tell "Tom B" that he was wasting Jenkins' time? How much would you have charged "Tom B" for that service?

---

"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain

Last edited on 08 Jan 2011 21:53 by (account deleted) Show more

TheGreatJuju 08 Jan 2011 22:32

Also this essay covers some of the pitfalls and fallacies involved in falling into debunker mode.

You haven't demonstrated that you even understand the basic fallacies. In fact, you've demonstrated that you don't.

Instead of highlighting some few statements by John Jenkins you don't agree with (in Carnival 2012 I point out some of my areas of disagreement with him) why don't you engage his work for the invaluable assistance it can provide anyone who want to separate the wheat from the chaff with this topic?

Why? It's so much more productive to consult sources without so much baggage attached.

There are plenty of actual 2012 charlatans out there with unsavory motivations like the Horizon Project, etc. that people need to know about.

I'll certainly concede that Jenkins is on the milder end of the 2012er spectrum, though he's been a bit shifty in this regard.

The key question: Is this person some flake or charlatan that needs to be exposed, or is this a sincere, thoughtful person I don't see eye-to-eye with on every point?

If John Major Jenkins makes claims that are wrong (and he does), he isn't absolved by simply saying some other things that might be right.

If some wanted to go through the thousands of pages of writings on my site, many of them personal and whimsical, the could find all sorts of thing to take out of context to make me look like whatever they want to.

So are you again implying something attributed to you or Jenkins on this site is out of context? What exactly?

If you are able to recognize that someone isn't a charlatan or complete flake than the useful approach is to recognize common ground as well as differences.

You dubiously assume there is any worthwhile benefit to finding common ground with someone who think you are an "energy vampire" and "mind parasite." Jenkins' purported distaste for doomsayers is well-documented on this website, but he isn't absolved by simply saying some other things that might be right. In the same sense, your "substantial contributions to debunking 2012 misinformation" are not a prima facie absolution of anything else you say or write. This isn't complicated.

I will be glad to respond to anyone who wants to seriously engage the content of Carnival 2012.

So you've said.

And thanks for the clarification about wiki syntax, will try to watch out for it.

No problem.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 20:32

And thanks for the clarification about wiki syntax, will try to watch out for it.

Jonathan Zap (guest) 08 Jan 2011 22:06

First I'm told I'm "running away," then I'm told I'm overstaying my welcome and wasting time, but whenever I try to close people keeping posting. What did Al Pacino say, "Every time I try to get away, they keep pulling me back in." I'd heard about attacks on me at this site weeks ago and haven't had time to respond till just now, so it's not like I'm looking for opportunities to express myself on random websites. If you have specific points about John's work take it up with him. He's been involved in thousands of pages of such exchanges and is probably burned out with it by now. John is the one competent to defend his work. I do feel a bit of bittersweet humor about your implications that John is part of some nefarious jade and tourism ring or whatever. John would be in much better financial shape if he put efforts into generating income rather than research. If anyone is making a windfall from 2012, it isn't him. Some people imagine that if someone has a book or two in print or you hear their name in certain media venus that they're making money. Trust me, you don't want to give up your day job.

Anyway, I'm laboring under a book deadline so I really must draw a line on this. I'll close by thanking everyone who participated, Despite some abrasiveness on all sides (including mine) there was by internet standards a certain degree of civility, no name-calling or profanity and some reference to specifics. Anyone who wants to contact me about points about my writings, contact info on my site. I'm sure we are all looking forward to 2013 when we can put all this behind us. Thanks and take care.

TheGreatJuju 08 Jan 2011 22:53

First I'm told I'm "running away,"

Because you kept saying you wouldn't post unless everyone devoured your essay like a plate of fudge.

then I'm told I'm overstaying my welcome and wasting time,

You are wasting our time. You made accusations that you can't support, and have since done little besides repeat them. A and B, in this case, are not mutually exclusive propositions.

…but whenever I try to close people keeping posting.

Well, you've started a perpetual cycle, it seems.

I'd heard about attacks on me at this site weeks ago and haven't had time to respond till just now

You're mentioned. I don't know that I'd say you are attacked per se. You do revel in the title "dream worker," yes? I can't imagine why you're so bothered, with you advertise yourself in the same way.

If you have specific points about John's work take it up with him.

I think Jenkins has been dealt with generally and sufficiently. As I've already said, he's not really on the radar in terms of being a fear-mongering crank like Patrick Geryl, Nancy Lieder or some of more popular doomsayers. He wasn't even that much of a topic here until the "energy vampires" and "mind parasites" crap came up.

He's been involved in thousands of pages of such exchanges and is probably burned out with it by now.

No doubt.

John is the one competent to defend his work. I do feel a bit of bittersweet humor about your implications that John is part of some nefarious jade and tourism ring or whatever.

I don't recall Jenkins' being portrayed as having hit some kind of 2012 jackpot.

Some people imagine that if someone has a book or two in print or you hear their name in certain media venus that they're making money. Trust me, you don't want to give up your day job.

Can you point out where that sentiment is expressed on this site?

I'm sure we are all looking forward to 2013 when we can put all this behind us.

It will just be something else then. Let's hope Jenkins learns his lesson and stays off the next magical bandwagon.

Thanks and take care.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

(account deleted) 09 Jan 2011 02:37

If you have specific points about John's work take it up with him.

Excuse me, but we didn't go to your website and say, "Let me tell you what's wrong with Jenkins' work." You came to ours, accused us of misrepresenting him, and told us we should "engage his work". Which, I'll remind you, includes assertions that the ancient Maya could create quantum anomalies at will, and travel through them to times and places of their choosing. Also that they were semi-human deities who kept precession rolling through their own blood-sacrifices.

As for "taking it up with him", our purpose here is to investigate claims about 2012 and, if appropriate, debunk them. This is what we've done with Jenkins' claims. If he has any specific points to discuss about our articles on him, he's more than welcome to come here and take them up with us. I doubt he's unaware of what we've said; for several months now our page on Jenkins has occupied a higher spot in Google results for "John Major Jenkins" than has been occupied by Jenkins' own "JohnMajorJenkins.com" site. I also know he's aware of our review of The 2012 Story.

[Jenkins has] been involved in thousands of pages of such exchanges [about his work] and is probably burned out with it by now.

A simple "I blew it, everyone: the Galactic Alignment is hogwash. Please forgive me." wouldn't over-tax him, I'm sure. Just as I'm sure you'd survive admitting that you haven't substantiated a single accusation you've made here, despite having been asked to do so throughout this thread.

I do feel a bit of bittersweet humor about your implications that John is part of some nefarious jade and tourism ring or whatever.

Never said it was a "nefarious ring". Congratulations; you've been caught straw-manning (again). And there's no "whatever" about it. As I've already indicated, our documentation of the mutual promotion (which is all I asserted) is extensive and detailed.

John would be in much better financial shape if he put efforts into generating income rather than research.

Yes, and some of us here would be in better financial shape if we put our efforts into generating income instead of doing the research to refute his nonsense. What of it?

Despite some abrasiveness on all sides (including mine) …

Starting with the title you chose for this thread…

I'm sure we are all looking forward to 2013 when we can put all this behind us.

A lot of it would be put behind us very quickly if Jenkins just admitted that his Galactic Alignment is hogwash. Why not suggest it to him?

Edit: Note that Jonathan Zap appears to neither know nor care that Jenkins's "Galactic Alignment" is mixture of blatant errors, half-truths, and knowingly misleading statements, but nevertheless praises Jenkins's work as invaluable for understanding 2012. A behavior shared by every Jenkins promoter I've met to date, without exception.

---

"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain

Last edited on 26 Apr 2011 18:36 by (account deleted) Show more

Vhrico (guest) 24 Apr 2011 22:46

I'm late to this argument (got sent here from another thread on the forum wikipidia 2012 Phenomenon but after reading all the posts I think this entire thread can be boiled down to one simple premise: Jonathan Zap doesn't want his name to be associated with this website in any way, shape or form.

Astrogeek 25 Apr 2011 06:21

Well, really, who can blame him? We aren't exactly gentle with him or his buddy, JMJ.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Mephistospheles 25 Apr 2011 06:43

Well, is he for it or against it? I'm not quite sure but I'd rather not fight fiercely if he doesn't believe in it…

---

Our fears are more numerous than our dangers, and we suffer more in our imagination than in reality.

Astrogeek 25 Apr 2011 06:55

Well, if you want to wade through Zap's prose and decide for yourself, you could read:

http://www.zaporacle.com/a-mutant-convergence-how-john-major-jenkins-jonathan-zap-and-terence-mckenna-met-during-a-weekend-of-high-strangeness-in-1996/

Zap is a bit cagey about his beliefs, but I'd say that he's "sort-of pro-2012" and in the 'transformationallist' camp.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Mephistospheles 25 Apr 2011 07:02

I can't believe this… Is this even written for the ordinary citizen? He uses a lot of imagery that makes things even more confusing. And there are words almost never used during daily conversation. Not to mention some words that you need to research for: Neoplatonic anyone?

---

Our fears are more numerous than our dangers, and we suffer more in our imagination than in reality.

Astrogeek 25 Apr 2011 17:46

The term is 'bafflegab'… basically he's decided to stroke his ego by being deliberately wordy and obtuse in his writing style, so that he can snicker behind his monitor when someone says "What does that mean?"

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

ThreeFangCat 25 Apr 2011 17:10

The nice thing about freedom of speech is that we are allowed to speak out against Zap's and JMJ's ideas if we choose to. I'm not surprised he doesn't want to appear on a website that is critical of his ideas. The last thing a woo-artist wants is the application of critical thinking.