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.






