You should listen to Mahr DML, Paxil may be what you need.

"You should listen to Mahr DML, Paxil may be what you need."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_abusive

Yes he is, he is alive. Thompson lost his credibility when he killed himself. What a huge downer that was, and still is. You are quite correct on the intellect though....hands down.






No David, I am one of those who KNOW, that my government is not competent enough to pull something like this off. One of those Americans who KNOW that my government is not capable of keeping the lid on ANYTHING.

"Thompson lost his credibility when he killed himself."

You're one of those people who don't believe anyone can be "suicided":

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=suicided

Well, being killed and then having it be made to look like a suicide DOES exist:

One recently declassified CIA document, a letter from an Agency consultant to a CIA officer, states: "You will recall that I mentioned that the local circumstances under which a given means might be used, might suggest the technique to be used in that case. I think the gross divisions in presenting this subject might be: 1) bodies left with no hope of the cause of death being determined by the most complete autopsy and chemical examinations; 2) bodies left in such circumstances as to simulate accidental death; 3) bodies left in such circumstances as to simulate suicidal death; 4) bodies left with residue that simulate those caused by natural diseases."(19)


19. Jim Marrs, Crossfire, The Plot That Killed Kennedy, New York: Carroll & Graf, 1989, p. 557

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/4764.html



Firstly, if Thompson was "suicided" he wouldn't be the first one to be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Salvador_Allende




Secondly, even if you believe the suicide theory it does nothing to take away from his work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_S._Thompson#Accolades_and_tributes


Hemingway killed himself and he remained credible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Hemingway#Influence_and_legacy




"No David, I am one of those who KNOW, that my government is not competent enough to pull something like this off."

Ah yes ... the government that's too incompetent to commit horrible crimes but competent enough to investigate itself when it's accused of committing horrible crimes.

Convenient.

One of "those" people huh? No David, I believe in magic enemas, just not for Thompson.


I should have added that Thompson's great days were well behind him by the time he offed himself.

Nowhere even close to the credibility of Chomsky. If someone like him had some dirt, it wouldn't be taken seriously either. They wouldn't need to off him, or give him a magic enema like Marilyn.




No, it doesn't. I really respected the man up until the time he took the easy way out. So many young people just idolized him, then he goes and kills himself. Very disappointing.



Now we are specifically talking about the twin towers here. Building seven which didn't have a plane crashed into it, was likely "pulled" based on radio traffic that was heard by everybody.

The Pentagon is another matter entirely.....

Do I think that our military could possibly have a contingency plan in place, to insure that there was military targeted in a possible attack? You bet.

It is important legally, when you plan to attack and invade a sovereign nation. It needs to be shown, that our military was targeted.

The most secure place on the planet, yet no clear video of a plane hitting the Pentagon. You can bet that there is ALWAYS satellite(s) pointing at the Pentagon. Domestic and foreign. Yet all we get is an embarrassing blurred picture, which could be a cruise missile for all we know.

The lack of sheared-off wings that NO spin can possibly explain. The newly hardened area that was struck, almost seems like it was chosen for minimal damage and loss of life.

But still, we are talking about the twin towers here.

I suspect that in some distant future, we will learn that Pakistan played a major role in this attack. Our posture towards them at the time was very intense. They were threatened to be bombed back into the stone-age, if they didn't cooperated with the war on terror. And they rolled right over, and seemed to played dead for us.

While at the same time, elements in their intel service were working contrary to our goals, and helping the taliban.


Since I was all over the map with this, let me reiterate my belief.

1. The twin tower attacks were done by terrorists, who possibly had help from Pakistan. It seemed to be geared towards shifting the blame to the Saudi's for obvious reasons.

2. The Pentagon attack scenario seem to be full of gaping holes. Some actual pics of a plane flying into it, would help fill those holes.

3. Building seven smells like BS. Considering that I heard the order to "pull it".

"1. The twin tower attacks were done by terrorists, who possibly had help from Pakistan. It seemed to be geared towards shifting the blame to the Saudi's for obvious reasons."

The twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolition - it had to be an inside job as someone would have noticed Pakistani terrorists sneaking in tonnes of thermate.

What you and Chomsky both need to keep ignoring in order to hold onto your fantasies regarding the "no inside job" theory is these peer-reviewed articles in this respected journal:


Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
pp.35-40 (6) Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
doi: 10.2174/1874149500802010035

Abstract


Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM




Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Abstract


We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Alright....sheesh. I've read so much crap about this, why not some more eh? I tell you what, while I read this "open source" Bentham stuff....


check this out... http://oaspa.org/blog/2009/06/11/publishing-ethics-open-access-and-oaspa/

The recent case of a computer-generated prank paper reportedly accepted by a new open access journal, The Open Information Science Journal, published by Bentham Science, calls attention to the vital importance of sound and ethical editorial practice for all scholarly publishers.

Such good practice is clearly required whatever the business model of the journal concerned. Indeed, the inspiration for this particular prank was the well-known Sokal affair, in which a deliberately nonsensical paper created by physicist Alan Sokal was accepted for publication in 1996 by the subscription-only journal, Social Text, published by Duke University Press.

-end


Or this....

http://old.nabble.com/Be-careful-with-Bentham-Open----it-an-odd-publishing-venture-td19446213.html

Be careful with Bentham Open -- it an odd publishing venture
Click to flag this post

by Ken Friedman-2 Sep 11, 2008; 05:37pm :: Rate this Message: - Use ratings to moderate (?)

Reply | Reply to Author | Print | View Threaded | Show Only this Message
Friends,

Letters are now going out from a firm called Bentham Open to scholars in different areas of design research inviting them to join editorial boards of the Bentham Open Journals.

Please look them over with care before accepting such an offer. At my faculty, we encourage people to work as journal editors and journal reviewers. This is an important service to the field. Respectable journals always need more skilled and active reviewers. If you're interested in doing this kind of work, why not contact the editors of our many good journals?

Bentham's flavor of open access publishing is a for-profit venture, and it seems to me organized for profit rather than for scientific or scholarly contribution. The submission fees are too high as far as I am concerned, and I just don't see that Bentham has serious experience in scholarly or scientific publishing.

Few of these journals can have serious impact. Several Bentham journals appear be indexed only in Directory of Open Access Journals as well as Google and Google Scholar. DOAJ is a reference valuable tool, but it is not an index based on any factor other than the fact that a journal is available free on the web. And who on earth would claim articles are "indexed" in Google and Google Scholar? These are search engines, not indexes.

If you'd like a good list of current journals, we'll soon be releasing a widely accessible version of our recent study on design journals. We did it to assist the response of the Australian Deans of Built Environment and Design to the government's Excellence in Research for Australia initiative. Preliminary results went out a month ago, and we are now preparing a better and more useful draft with added information before extending and deepening the study. This lists some 200 or so journals, and among our 300+ informants, none mentioned any journal published by Bentham.

Elsevier, MIT Press, Berg, Oxford University Press, Intellect, and others publish serious journals in design, design research, and cognate fields, along with the independent publishers of specialized journals and journal hybrids. No need to waste time on journals that primarily exist to bring money into the companies that own them. My experience is that all journals need serious reviewers. It's also my experience that good reviewers are often invited to editorial boards.

Best regards,

Ken

Ken Friedman
Professor, Ph.D., Dr.Sci. (hc), FDRS

Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia


-----
Swinburne University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D


-end


Or this......

http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/a-new-model-for-open-access-the-pyramid-scheme/



A new model for open access: the pyramid scheme
4 July, 2008
tags: Bentham Open, open access, pyramid scheme
by llwynn

Yesterday I got an e-mail from a company that seems to specialize in coming up with new open-access journals:

Dear Dr. Wynn,

In recognition of your outstanding reputation and contribution in the field of Demography ,we are pleased to propose your name as the Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Open Demography Journal’. After the selection your role as the Editor-in-Chief will not be an onerous one. You will not be expected to process any submitted manuscripts to the journal nor referee them (unless you choose to do so). What we would expect from you is that you would arrange to solicit and submit a minimum of ten manuscripts to the journal each year. Moreover, from time to time we would hope that you would offer advice on how best to develop the journal in order to maintain and improve on its success in the field. You would also be free to invite new editorial board members to the journal who wish to take an active editorial role. For all manuscripts that you submit to the journal, from above ten that are published, we will pay you annual royalty of 5% of all fees received on these manuscripts.

Since the launch of the new open access journal entitled “The Open Demography Journal” there has been a lot of interest in the journal from both authors and readers. The journal is freely available at no costs to readers via the journal’s website at www.todemoj.org. We expect that this year the number of submitted manuscripts to the journal will rapidly increase and that the journal will establish itself internationally.

Your term as the Editor-in-Chief would be initially for two years which is renewable by mutual agreement. We hope you will consider this offer and look forward to receiving your positive reply. Please could you reply to me by return email at email: editor@benthamopen.org within 24 hours after receipt of this offer along with your detailed CV and list of publications so that it can be sent to the Advisory Board for review.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
BENTHAM OPEN

[This message has been sent to you because of your eminence in the field. If, however, you do not want to receive any email/offer/invitation in future from Bentham Open, then please click here.]

Hmm. I know that open access publishing requires a different funding model than the traditional subscriber-pays, and perhaps that will entail a different approach to soliciting and rewarding academic labor. Yet I hadn’t quite imagined my way to the model outlined in this letter, which is almost a pyramid scheme. It does explain all the e-mails I’ve gotten this year from the editors of obscure open-access journals, inviting me to contribute. They’re all looking for their 5%, I guess.

Perhaps I would be more inclined to take the funding model seriously if it weren’t obviously spam. Not only am I not a demographer, I’ve only ever published one article in a demography journal (which I assume is where they got my name). I’m about the furthest thing from “eminence in the field.” What’s uncanny is that just last month I also got invited to be the editor-in-chief of a new medical journal devoted to women’s health. (Ditto as with the demography business: I’m not a physician, though I do publish in medical journals and write about reproductive health policy.)

Is anyone else getting stuff like this?

–L.L. Wynn

-end


Or this.....

http://poynder.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-access-interviews-matthew-honan.html

Last April Bentham announced its intention of launching 300 new Open Access journals by the end of the year. The audacity of this announcement should not be underestimated. After all, it has taken BMC eight years to build up a portfolio of 185 OA journals. And at the time of its announcement, Bentham itself was publishing less than 100 subscription journals. Unsurprisingly, therefore Bentham later reduced the number of new journals it planned to launch to 200.

Badly targeted

Even so, it was clear that an aggressive marketing campaign would be needed: For if Bentham was to achieve its goal it would need to recruit hundreds of researchers to act as chief editors, thousands to sit on the editorial boards of the new journals, and thousands more to submit papers to these journals. Consequently before long a constant stream of email invitations was flowing into the inboxes of researchers around the world.

At first the strategy appeared to be working. After all, being on the editorial board of a scholarly journal is a much-cherished ambition for researchers, and the kudos attached to being a chief editor an even more attractive goal; likewise, their constant hunger to be published means that researchers are always on the lookout for publishing opportunities. All in all, therefore, many of those receiving Bentham's invitations initially responded positively.

After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Bentham's activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research or, even more oddly, invited to join the editorial board of educational journals. This inevitably raised concerns about the likely quality of the new journals, particularly as researchers were being asked to pay from $600 to $900 a time for the privilege of being published in them.

To add insult to injury, some of the invitations researchers were receiving were addressed to a completely different person, or the name field was empty, and addressed simply to "Dear Dr.,". It was hard not to feel more insulted than flattered on receiving such letters.

Moreover, what was clearly an automated mass mailing exercise was proving a little profligate with its invitations, sending them out not just to researchers, but to any Tom, Dick or Harry. On at least one occasion, for instance, a journalist (who asked not to be named) was surprised to receive a letter from Bentham inviting him to submit a paper, "Based on your record of contributions in the field of information science." As he explains, "I was rather surprised by this, since — as a practicing science journalist — I wasn't aware that I had made any such contributions!"

At first the tide of increasingly inappropriate invitations was greeted with a mixture of good humour and head scratching. However, as the flood of email invitations continued unabated the recipients' response shifted from amusement to frustration, and then to anger — especially when they discovered that all requests to be removed from the mailing list were ignored.

Spam plague

By March of this year, senior health care research scientist at the University of Toronto Gunther Eysenbach had had enough. Publicly criticising Bentham's activities on his blog, Eysenbach complained, "In the past couple of months I have received no less than 11 emails from Bentham, all mostly identical in text and form, all signed by 'Matthew Honan, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers' or 'Richard Scott, Editorial Director, Bentham Science Publishers', 'inviting' me to submit research articles, reviews and letters to various journals."

He added, "All pleas and begging from my side to stop the spamming, as well as clicking on any 'unsubcribe' links did not stop the spam plague from Bentham."



-end


Like I said, I will read it......but Bentham seems kind of fishy to me.

"Like I said, I will read it......but Bentham seems kind of fishy to me."

Of course it does. When the truth movement presents evidence of an inside job, the official story crowd says "no peer review"! Then when the truth movement presents evidence in a peer reviewed journal, the official story crowd says "not good enough of a peer review" - the official story crowd will say anything to avoid dealing with the evidence and the facts.

A good researcher looks at everything, including the backgrounds of references. Did you bother reading the links? I am reading the Bentham 14 points of agreement, the least you can do is look closely at Benthams record. If it isn't enough, how about I give you some more critiques of Bentham, from highly credible scholars?

Whose mind is closed here?






Check this out, and remember that I got it off of scholars for 9/11 truth and justice, before you just ignore it.


http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

"If it isn't enough, how about I give you some more critiques of Bentham, from highly credible scholars?"

Much more interested in talking about the 14 points ... how many of those critiques were from before the 9/11 articles came out ... and how many of those critiques came after - or as a result of - someone attacking the establishment?

I read what you posted - and will read anything else you post here - but let's try and poke holes in the articles first and if you find something wrong with them then we can talk about the credibility, and if we don't then the credibility is no longer an issue.