Cliff High view on Bill Ryans accusations

[Average Joe]

Originally Posted by YinYangMind

AJ,

Do you just stop in and spout to make yourself feel relevant or do you actually have some data to back up your short intellectually vacuous statements? Your post above sounds just like the childish non-sense that Bill threw on the table starting this latest of many questionable events surrounding the PC/PA world.

Question looking for an answer: Have you done any actual research on the subject discussed on this thread? If so, care to share your findings?

Peace,

YinYangMind

My findings are that HPH is an entertainment website that has not predicted anything accurately so far. Like I said.

[YinYangMind]

Originally Posted by Average Joe

My findings are that HPH is an entertainment website that has not predicted anything accurately so far. Like I said.

I see. You've definitely demonstrated a severe depth of critical thinking, participation and response. If you would actually take the time to 'read, ponder and respond', I'll be more than happy to post empirical data that is contrary to your findings. Somehow, I'm not sure you'd take the time or consider data outside of your own realm of evidence, but I will provide you some thought provoking results from my research if you'd like nonetheless.

Peace,

YinYangMind

[Average Joe]

Originally Posted by YinYangMind

I see. You've definitely demonstrated a severe depth of critical thinking, participation and response. If you would actually take the time to 'read, ponder and respond', I'll be more than happy to post empirical data that is contrary to your findings. Somehow, I'm not sure you'd take the time or consider data outside of your own realm of evidence, but I will provide you some thought provoking results from my research if you'd like nonetheless.

Peace,

YinYangMind

Go on then.

Produce empirical data that shows the site to have predicted anything remotely accurate, and I'm not talking vague co-incidences here.

Also, show me how the site is not for entertainment purposes only - it had that disclaimer on it for years. It doesn't now, but you don't seriously believe that an entertainment website is now churning out serious stuff and serious results do you?

[clarkkent]

its best to ignore wholly useless posts (all of aj's so far) and pay attention to people who have something substantive to say. in forum "speak" i believe the term is "troll' and its best to leave them unfed.

-clark

http://superstrangeland.blogspot.com/

[sjkted]

Originally Posted by Average Joe

Go on then.

Produce empirical data that shows the site to have predicted anything remotely accurate, and I'm not talking vague co-incidences here.

Also, show me how the site is not for entertainment purposes only - it had that disclaimer on it for years. It doesn't now, but you don't seriously believe that an entertainment website is now churning out serious stuff and serious results do you?

The bit about it being for entertainment purposes is quite obviously a legal disclaimer so that nobody takes legal action against HPH in case they misinterpret what he says or if he makes a prediction that doesn't come true.

I could bring up some more details on how he is accurate, but I sense you're just looking for an argument here.

--sjkted

[sjkted]

Originally Posted by clarkkent

its best to ignore wholly useless posts (all of aj's so far) and pay attention to people who have something substantive to say. in forum "speak" i believe the term is "troll' and its best to leave them unfed.

-clark

http://superstrangeland.blogspot.com/

I agree. We're being trolled here. I'm not responding to any more of this sh**.

--sjkted

[Average Joe]

Originally Posted by clarkkent

its best to ignore wholly useless posts (all of aj's so far) and pay attention to people who have something substantive to say. in forum "speak" i believe the term is "troll' and its best to leave them unfed.

-clark

http://superstrangeland.blogspot.com/

Ignore the truth all you like. Ironic for this forum, I'll give you that.

I stand by my statement re HPH and it isn't trolling. Maybe the truth hurts - not my fault.

[Average Joe]

Originally Posted by sjkted

The bit about it being for entertainment purposes is quite obviously a legal disclaimer so that nobody takes legal action against HPH in case they misinterpret what he says or if he makes a prediction that doesn't come true.

--sjkted

Of course.

[Myplanet2]

Originally Posted by clarkkent

its best to ignore wholly useless posts (all of aj's so far) and pay attention to people who have something substantive to say. in forum "speak" i believe the term is "troll' and its best to leave them unfed.

-clark

There's always got to be one, it seems. "I gots dis here opiniun, and wants to shares it wit chew all (scratch-scratch)". Nothing wrong with sharing opinions, but kind of useless when accompanied by a "facts" vacuum. I guess the wedding interrupted by the quake, and the northeast power outage were "coinkydinks"

[franciejones]

He escalated it in my opinion to refute your comments on this forum AND in an email that you sent to me which I did not request from you. I forwarded to Clif what you had said in the email...unedited ofcourse and he chose to reply on his site. I will post the email here for others to read.

Originally Posted by Bill Ryan

Actually, the thread title should be Bill Ryan on Clif High's accusations!

I was appreciative that Clif posted my original message correct and unchanged.

(Please do read it carefully, by the way.)

It had been a reply to a question on the Bill Ryan thread, asking why Clif had stated publicly that Bill Deagle was a paid agent. So I answered the question, because that was the purpose of the thread.

Clif was correct about my getting the 'PI' wrong. That was my error. The rest of what I wrote was essentially correct.

The substantive issue is that Clif was trying to smear a whistleblower for reasons best known to himself, and was searching for information he could use to discredit him. For me, that's an integrity issue.

What I'd called a PI [Private Investigator] was described in the original e-mail (sent to me on 14 April) by Clif as a "researcher/detective". This person was NOT hired by him. My mistake, and I'm happy to correct that.

Meanwhile, Clif's reason for escalating this issue publicly was - I'm as sure as I can be - an excuse to raise the profile of his allegations against Bill Deagle. So I will not be wrestling with him anywhere.

But I'll make this simple response here (or else people will wonder why I'm not saying anything) - and then Clif can shout from the rooftops if he wants to make an idiot of himself.

The issue is this. We will protect Camelot whistleblowers against smears and innuendo. If not us, then who? This is our job and is one of the reasons Camelot exists.

If someone wants to create a wonderful new world by raking through the personal finances of someone they disagree with without directly facing to the person they're trying to make a case against, then I suggest that this is not the direction to take to create a new civilization.

It sounds terribly like the old one to me.

Very best wishes to all - Bill

______

Note:

* For me the issue feels closed, and the above is a pretty good statement of where I stand.
* I won't be visiting this thread again. You're welcome to ask me questions on the Bill Ryan thread, and I'll answer them. The reason for this is simply limited time - I can only reasonably monitor one long thread on the forum, and it's helpful for members to have just one place where they can find me. So please forgive me if this is my only post here.
--Cheers, B

[Average Joe]

Originally Posted by Myplanet2

There's always got to be one, it seems. "I gots dis here opiniun, and wants to shares it wit chew all (scratch-scratch)". Nothing wrong with sharing opinions, but kind of useless when accompanied by a "facts" vacuum. I guess the wedding interrupted by the quake, and the northeast power outage were "coinkydinks"

I'm sorry, but there is always "lots" it seems, that believe any old BS, any old BS site, and then when it is pointed out, resort to pseudo intellectual character assassination of the said "one"

I have said that site has never been right in its predictions. I have said that it is an entertainment site. How many more facts do you want, you people that accuse me of being a troll and of not using facts? There are TWO big fat facts for you to chew on right there.

I still await somebody, anybody, to provide me with solid facts that show it is a serious site and has gotten predictions in the past right. Until then, I think people should lay off the character assassination OK? I'm here to discuss, this took my interest, on this occasion I oppose, so what is the big problem. People just can't take opposing views on sites like this can they?

And yes, the vague co-incidences about the wddding and power outage, need more than that. Where is the link predicting the wedding interrupted by the quake, with time, date, location? Where is the news article confirming time, date, location after the event? They have to match to be a fact not a "coinkydink"

[Luana]

AJ, I wonder if you have bought and read any of the alta reports? If you have, then you are able to be part of the webbot discussion forum. They have been keeping track of bot hits. There are way to many to post here. Which is one of the reasons Clif is so highly thought of here.

[truth and integrity]

Originally posted by franciejones
You’re being hotheaded and impetuous again!

I can hear you franciejones. It is so frustrating when people can not accept our needs or a different opinion but use judgment or name-calling to discredit our needs or point of view. Very immature stance, indeed.

Best regards,

[Myplanet2]

Originally Posted by Average Joe

I still await somebody, anybody, to provide me with solid facts that show it is a serious site and has gotten predictions in the past right.

No proof would serve when your opinions are set as facts in your mind. I won't waste my time debating.

[Carol]

I do not understand why franciejones was banned. She shared an email not an Avalon PM which would have been a reason for a ban. She had the right to share it and Bill responded in a very open manner. What is the problem here? I thought openness was something this forum strived for and Kerry certainly set the standard when she stated her opinions last year with respect to Henry Deacon/Art Neumann, their own whistle blower and the moderators. What is it about putting the truth out in the open that is so offensive? Bill stands behind what he wrote. We all know this is where he stands as he is very clear in stating his opinion. Franciejones' post just revealed that Bill is consistent in his opinion at a personal level in his communication with her as well.

[Dood]

I HAVE to 2nd what Carol just posted.
Trust me on this...Carol and I have not always saw eye to eye on things but, I HAVE to agree with her on this wholeheartedly!

Carol stated it better then I could so I will just simply 2nd what Carol posted!

In the spirit of Openness:
I will say since I have met Francie way back when she was made a moderator here on Avalon without her knowledge or anyone asking her if she wanted to be a Mod was when I got to meet her and know her.
(long story there)
She has aways been dead honest and forthcoming.

She has integrity in spades! I am honored to have had the opportunity to have met her.
She is a true Lady. I do not see anywhere on how she broke any rules regarding the Terms of Service here!

[YinYangMind]

Originally Posted by Luana

AJ, I wonder if you have bought and read any of the alta reports? If you have, then you are able to be part of the webbot discussion forum. They have been keeping track of bot hits. There are way to many to post here. Which is one of the reasons Clif is so highly thought of here.

And that's the real point isn't it! It seems that AJ has taken the same sorry tack that Bill has on this issue and franciejones post/issue... seems more like the AGW crowd throwing questionable and demonstrably blatant incorrect 'facts' around for some 'cya.'

AJ, you by your own admission have seen that the 'disclaimer' regarding 'entertainment' has been removed from the site (it's now included in each report with very detailed reasons) and as stated by the quoted post, you probably have never spent any time reading any of them. Additionally, HPH states specifically that they 'do not make predictions' as you accuse, they make 'forecasts' just like the jolly ole weathermen in the UK. Do you understand the difference between the two? Do you give them the same disregard in their profession you give HPH?

As stated, there are plenty of 'bot hits' if you care to objectively review them. You stating that the 'predictions', which they are not, have never had one hit supported by news articles, etc, is just plain ignorant!

As many of us here have stated many times, there are some very intelligent and thoughtful people here who hold Clif in high regard because we have spent the time analyzing his body of work. The latest childish and nefarious non-sense that has come from the latest PC/PA interviews/interviewees/protection & defection of 'whistleblowers' and their questionable pasts have raised serious concerns for those of us who have followed both PC/PA & HPH. It's funny that you don't see any of these types of issues surrounding HPH...except when Bill stumbled and created a reason for Clif to clarify facts from fiction...which by all accounts, was done very well and Bill hasn't even attempted to address what Glif wrote...where's the truth in that AJ?

We are trying to get to the bottom of the truth. If you have 'facts' that support your position, bring it on. Otherwise, stop wasting your valuable keyboard and internet time with your negative, factless, agenda driven drivel so the rest of us can continue pursuing the truth!

Oh, one more question...do you believe in AGW?

Peace,

YinYangMind

[Argante]

Originally Posted by Dood

I HAVE to 2nd what Carol just posted.
Trust me on this...Carol and I have not always saw eye to eye on things but, I HAVE to agree with her on this wholeheartedly!

Carol stated it better then I could so I will just simply 2nd what Carol posted!

In the spirit of Openness:
I will say since I have met Francie way back when she was made a moderator here on Avalon without her knowledge or anyone asking her if she wanted to be a Mod was when I got to meet her and know her.
(long story there)
She has aways been dead honest and forthcoming.

She has integrity in spades! I am honored to have had the opportunity to have met her.
She is a true Lady. I do not see anywhere on how she broke any rules regarding the Terms of Service here!

I also agree with what Dood and Carol have said regarding Francie.

Very sad to see a senior member silenced because they were trying to get to the truth. Francie was a valuable member , and I will miss her unique input and posts.

[metaw3]

Originally Posted by Argante

I also agree with what Dood and Carol have said regarding Francie.

Very sad to see a senior member silenced because they were trying to get to the truth. Francie was a valuable member , and I will miss her unique input and posts.

To those who didn't see it... She made 2 posts and the second one is deleted. It was an email from Bill Ryan forwarding to her his reply to Cliff High and asking her to "not post this letter anywhere". That's why she is banned I think. When I read this post I knew it would be deleted.

[eleni]

Originally Posted by metaw3

To those who didn't see it... She made 2 posts and the second one is deleted. It was an email from Bill Ryan forwarding to her his reply to Cliff High and asking her to "not post this letter anywhere". That's why she is banned I think. When I read this post I knew it would be deleted.

Yes, upon review of that post which I deleted it was brought to other mods who all agreed it was grounds for a ban.

[Bobbie]

I see two problems here. Both involve trust. Bill should have never trusted anyone with info that was not suitable for public viewing and she should have not betrayed his trust. I'm just putting in my 2 cents even though I don't know the banned party because that gives me a somewhat fairly objective view.

[tacodog]

I have great respect for Cliff High's work as well as Kerry and Bill's. What is going on here? Every whistleblower should be investigated as much as possible to determine their legitimacy. My opinion: Cliff High did what we all should do...google and research these people. How else do you sort out the frauds? She did what she felt was necessary, in the process betrayed Bill's trust. That trust factor is between her and Bill. I disagree with the banning of FrancesJones. All the whistleblowers were entrusted with information, should they banned? What happened to the openness and integrity of this site?

[eleni]

Posting private communication asked to be kept private will result in a ban. It's that simple.

[Dood]

Originally Posted by eleni

Posting private communication asked to be kept private will result in a ban. It's that simple.

Let me get this straight! You are saying she broke the Terms & Conditions of this forum?
I would agree with you IF both parties AGREED to whatever information was shared would remain private.
But, that was not the case here....She was never given any CHOICE to say yes or no to this.
It was just sent to her freely and without her asking for this information.

For example I cannot PM you and say: "Here is something on the side...blah..blah...blah..." and then expect you to not say anything unless you agreed to it.
I cannot just decree that it is confidential unless you agree with me. You have to have that choice.

Both parties have to AGREE in order for something to be private.
It was freely given to her without her asking for this information.

So, in that respect she did not break ANYthing regarding the Terms & Conditions that we all (Staff included) agreed too.

I have seen emails shared on this and many other forums.
It is not privileged information unless both parties agree to it...

Even if said information is 'uncomfortable' in order to keep one's integrity one must live by the rules that were set up.
Since Francie Jones was not given any choice about anything being confidential then she did not break any rules.
She was simply told this information without her ever asking for it....
That is the difference here! She did not agree to this being 'private' because she was never given the choice to agree or not.

Now if an Email at the beginning of ALL of this stated:
"Francie I want to share something with you privately. Will you agree to keep this strictly confidential?" and if she replied: "Yes, I do..." then that is a whole nother story all together.
Then I would say you had grounds for a suspension of privileges.

Anything different ruins the integrity of the forum.

[morguana]

Originally Posted by Dood

Let me get this straight! You are saying she broke the Terms & Conditions of this forum?
I would agree with you IF both parties AGREED to whatever information was shared would remain private.
But, that was not the case here....She was never given any CHOICE to say yes or no to this.
It was just sent to her freely and without her asking for this information.

For example I cannot PM you and say: "Here is something on the side...blah..blah...blah..." and then expect you to not say anything unless you agreed to it.
I cannot just decree that it is confidential unless you agree with me. You have to have that choice.

Both parties have to AGREE in order for something to be private.
It was freely given to her without her asking for this information.

So, in that respect she did not break ANYthing regarding the Terms & Conditions that we all (Staff included) agreed too.

I have seen emails shared on this and many other forums.
It is not privileged information unless both parties agree to it...

Even if said information is 'uncomfortable' in order to keep one's integrity one must live by the rules that were set up.
Since Francie Jones was not given any choice about anything being confidential then she did not break any rules.
She was simply told this information without her ever asking for it....
That is the difference here! She did not agree to this being 'private' because she was never given the choice to agree or not.

Now if an Email at the beginning of ALL of this stated:
"Francie I want to share something with you privately. Will you agree to keep this strictly confidential?" and if she replied: "Yes, I do..." then that is a whole nother story all together.
Then I would say you had grounds for a suspension of privileges.

Anything different ruins the integrity of the forum.

this is not up for debate, a pm or email is by its very nature private
and to post an email or pm without consent is not cosher......end of

m x