tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post3556878848149703539..comments2023-05-06T02:39:25.916-07:00Comments on Debating the Anthrax Attacks of 2001: Feb. 19 - Feb. 25, 2012 DiscussionsEd Lakehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-49384019030210925042012-03-03T12:19:38.067-08:002012-03-03T12:19:38.067-08:00Posted by Mister Lake:
--------------
Richard Rowl...Posted by Mister Lake:<br />--------------<br />Richard Rowley wrote: "So a decade goes by and some guy on a blog has to take note of it..."<br /><br />And ten more decades will go by before you convince anyone that you know what you're talking about.<br />----------------------------------------------------------<br />Oh ye of little faith! As a matter of fact, my longest-term correspondent shows EVERY sign of believing me. And he's an accomplished reporter.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-18490927810363151592012-03-01T13:43:55.538-08:002012-03-01T13:43:55.538-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "So a decade goes by an...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"So a decade goes by and some guy on a blog has to take note of it..."</i><br /><br />And ten more decades will go by before you convince anyone that you know what you're talking about. Your fellow Anthrax Truthers do not believe you. <b>No one believes you.</b> You cannot provide any believable evidence. <br /><br />Talking about it as if it's some significant discovery is <b>ridiculous</b>. It's only an indication that you can conjure up things that YOU believe proves your theory. We all know you can do that. You do it repeatedly.<br /><br />What you need to do is find something that <b>OTHER PEOPLE</b> will accept as proof of your theory. So far, you've produced zilch. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-7076226479112606832012-03-01T12:09:27.509-08:002012-03-01T12:09:27.509-08:00I think that this is as good a place as any to not...I think that this is as good a place as any to note this (rather than this week's thread): implicit in my treatment of the Brokaw text (ie the pseudoHebrew style)is: Foster (and any other forensic linguists brought in on this) blew it. They had a text with an obviously Hebrew-styled lettering and saw it not. I'm guessing: perhaps Foster has no Hebrew even to the extent of letter recognition. So a decade goes by and some guy on a blog has to take note of it...r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-40399394973785477672012-02-27T13:45:57.425-08:002012-02-27T13:45:57.425-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "But I see I'm not ...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"But I see I'm not going to convince you."</i><br /><br />Right. I'm not easily convinced by <b>opinions</b>. I require facts.<br /><br />As I recall, there were people posting all kinds of things about Don Foster on various forums after that nonsense article was published in Vanity Fair. He was a very popular subject on FreeRepublic.com, but it doesn't appear that their current archives go back that far. I have a lot of FreeRepublic threads in my archives, but it would take too long to find anything, particularly since there doesn't appear to be any point to it. You're not going to be persuaded by anything I find.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-89419631810238253192012-02-27T13:26:51.266-08:002012-02-27T13:26:51.266-08:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
---------------------...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />-----------------------------------------------<br />So, claiming that Foster is a "widely recognized expert" on Shakespeare means you have not done sufficient research. <br />-----------------------------------------------------------<br />Okay, OBVIOUSLY you have done lots of research on Foster (I didn't nor to I feel particularly moved to: it would be different if I was a particular Shakespeare buff). <br /><br />My attitude towards 'expertise' and 'authority' (the latter term more generalized) is clearly different than your own. Despite what you posted about Foster above, I would still call him an "expert" (and I'm not doing it to get your goat)on Shakespeare.<br /><br />Almost every field of intellectual life is filled with controversy (heck there are even 'Shakespeare experts' who think there was no such person as Shakespeare!).<br /><br />What marks an 'expert' in my idiolect(and maybe I'm funny this way) is: a thorough understanding of the NATURE of such disputes: 'John Ford', the writer alluded to above, means NOTHING to me, because I lack all expertise in this area. I'm a layman's layman. Foster likely got his doctorate by, among other things, writing a looooooong dissertation (likely after a master's thesis)on some literary topic. A dissertation that, if I tried to read it, would perhaps go way over my head. He TEACHES Shakespeare at Vassar (I think). That's not something the average non-expert can 'fake'. He's tenured and that means his research played a big role in getting him tenure (that's what those 'primary committees' are keen on: published research of the peer-reviewed sort).<br /><br />Though you posted the above to discredit Foster, I take it as a good sign (ie a sign of his professionalism in his field) that he is willing to admit his mistakes.<br /><br />But I see I'm not going to convince you. Cheers!r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-47358902162229622892012-02-27T07:39:02.699-08:002012-02-27T07:39:02.699-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Alexander was BROUGHT ...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"Alexander was BROUGHT in (by Roth I think) circa February 2004. ... Yeah, his demurral after WEEKS (how many?) of reading those files DID, according to Willman, slow down the rush to indict Hatfill, ... it was ANOTHER 2 to 2 1/2 years before they cleared Hatfill. If Alexander had been higher up in the hierarchy (ie at or near the top)it almost certainly would not have taken so long."</i><br /><br />Not true. The clearing of Hatfill was only accomplished by <b>proving that Ivins did it</b>.<br /><br />Alexander saw right away (after reading all the files) that the case against Hatfill was weak. And, according to Willman, "another scientist -- Bruce Ivins -- merited the most rigorous scrutiny possible."<br /><br />It took another 2-1/2 years to turn Ivins into the prime suspect because it took that long to get all the scientific work done which pinpointed flask RMR-1029 as the source used to grow the attack spores. <br /><br />Once it was clear that Ivins was the culprit, then they could close the books on Hatfill. Proving someone is innocent can be as difficult as proving someone is guilty. And, in this case, because of all the people outside of the investigation who were pointing at Hatfill, Hatfill had to be <b>PROVED</b> innocent. There were just too many conspiracy theorists, reporters and politicians who considered Hatfill <b>guilty until proven innocent</b>.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-80395487468277395062012-02-27T07:23:19.639-08:002012-02-27T07:23:19.639-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "With #4 I agree: to pr...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"With #4 I agree: to prevent the spores from escaping into his vehicle/makeshift lab. Same way with the fold."</i><br /><br />It's a virtual certainty that Ivins (or "the culprit") didn't carry the letters around the same way one would carry ordinary letters. For one thing, he would want to avoid leaving fingerprints.<br /><br />He almost certainly put the letters into a ziplock plastic bag while they were still inside the biosafety cabinet, and he probably swabbed the outside of the bag down with bleach before removing it from the cabinet. <br /><br />He carried the letters to New Jersey in the disinfected plastic bag where he opened the bag and - <b>without touching the letters</b> - dumped them into the mailbox. <br /><br />So, he wasn't concerned about spilling anything in his vehicle.<br /><br />When you pull out a letter folded with the pharmaceutical fold, it's like opening a package. And, the powder inside can be felt. So, the person opening the letter would use both hands and probably lay the letter down to open it. <br /><br />You'd get far more airborne spores by using an ordinary fold which involves only one vertical fold. There would be spores inside the letter AND inside the envelope, and spores would spill out of the open end of the folded letter as you took it out of the envelope. <br /><br />The pharmaceutical fold was used to keep the spilling and aerosolization of the spores to a minimum.<br /><br />You're just picking the facts you think you can dispute while ignoring everything else. That shows that you have no real arguments.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-69323674166665324572012-02-27T06:56:07.646-08:002012-02-27T06:56:07.646-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Don Foster, however he...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"Don Foster, however he got into Mister Lake's doghouse, is a "widely recognized expert" on Shakespeare"</i><br /><br />He <b>WAS</b> once a "widely recognized expert" on Shakespeare."<br /><br />But, his work was shown to be NONSENSE. I've provided a link for you several times. But there's a better link here:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wayne_Foster<br /><br />It says:<br /><br />-----------<br />After considerable debate, <b>Foster's theory was eventually rejected by other Shakespeare scholars.</b> In 2002, Gilles Monsarrat, a translator of Shakespeare into French, published an article arguing that the poem's true author was John Ford, a younger writer whose works Monsarrat had also edited. <b>Foster conceded that Monsarrat had the better case</b> in a post on the SHAKSPER listserv, saying, "No one who cannot rejoice in the discovery of his own mistakes deserves to be called a scholar." <b>Foster said he had not previously analyzed Ford's works closely enough and had erroneously dismissed him as a possibility.</b><br />---------<br /><br />So, claiming that Foster is a "widely recognized expert" on Shakespeare means you have not done sufficient research. <br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-26653580836492319672012-02-26T20:20:27.701-08:002012-02-26T20:20:27.701-08:00From way up there somewhere (partial on signs the ...From way up there somewhere (partial on signs the perp didn't intend to kill anyone):<br />================================================<br />3. He folded the spores inside a "pharmaceutical fold" intended to keep the contents from spilling. <br /><br />4. He taped the envelopes shut to prevent spores from escaping.<br />====================================================<br />With #4 I agree: to prevent the spores from escaping into his vehicle/makeshift lab. Same way with the fold. C'mon if you receive an innocent-looking envelope and UNFOLD the letter by pulling it out of the envelope you are going to get MORE airborne spores than if the spores are just at the bottom of the envelope when you open it!r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-81430754903147650872012-02-26T20:12:53.643-08:002012-02-26T20:12:53.643-08:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
----------
Richard Ro...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />----------<br />Richard Rowley wrote: "In other words, the FBI administrators give the US attorney administrators THEIR take on a case, tell them how solid they think it is etc. THEN the US attorney administator provides personnel accordingly."<br /><br />Not true. The US attorney administrator doesn't provide any FBI personnel.[...]<br />-------------------------------------<br />I did NOT say "provide FBI personnel", I said provide "personnel" (ie US attorneys) BASED ON what the law enforcement administrators say. OTHERWISE the administrators would have to read ALL the files in every (let's say major) case. TOTALLY unrealistic.<br /><br />It's like that in the intelligence business too: at any given moment (round the clock, round the globe)NSA and other intelligence agencies are collecting MOUNTAINS of raw intelligence. MOUNTAINS EVERY SINGLE DAY. As it goes up the hierarchy, it gets compressed. And compressed. And compressed. And compressed. At the very top is the president's daily intelligence summary. Probably 10 to 40 pages at most. But most presidents DON'T READ IT. Because they don't want to devote so much time to it. Not compressed/summarized enough!<br /><br />The second Bush had George Tenet (later perhaps Tenet's successor)SUMMARIZE (yet more compression!)orally the intelligence when they (Bush and Tenet) would meet each morning.<br /><br />From a practical standpoint that's probably the only way to do it: the higher up the hierarchy, the less familiarity with the details of anything (in the Dept of Justice that means less familiarity with the gritty elements of the cases).r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-23537714922434905592012-02-26T19:54:50.434-08:002012-02-26T19:54:50.434-08:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
----------------
And ...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />----------------<br />And you fail to understand the difference between a SENIOR INVESTIGATOR like Lawrence Alexander, a task force chief like Edward Montooth[...]<br />==================================================<br />Look I've been in the military and I know how ranks and hierarchies work. The new guy, whatever his TITLE, isn't likely to have much influence unless he's either the boss (the head of the hierarchy), or if everyone else is exhausted/confused/idealess and is open to suggestions. Alexander was BROUGHT in (by Roth I think) circa February 2004. According to Willman, he was given the files on Hatfill with the info that Hatfill was the lead suspect, his indictment "imminent". Yeah, his demurral after WEEKS (how many?) of reading those files DID, according to Willman, slow down the rush to indict Hatfill, but look at the chronology: it was ANOTHER 2 to 2 1/2 years before they cleared Hatfill. If Alexander had been higher up in the hierarchy (ie at or near the top)it almost certainly would not have taken so long. And, if I recall correctly, it was a CHANGE in the very TOP of the task force in mid to fall 2006 that finally got them out of that Hatfill-did-it rut for good.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-66246511259360149982012-02-26T15:54:25.067-08:002012-02-26T15:54:25.067-08:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
----------------
Rich...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />----------------<br />Richard Rowley wrote: "If you will notice what I have written so far, you will see that I explicitly state that I am talking about the printed (I should have added "traditional printed") Hebrew letters only .."<br /><br />Hmm. It took you awhile to come up with that argument, didn't it?<br />==================================================<br />No, I don't think so. My very first post in dealing with the subject in some detail was at 06:07 on Feb 22nd (this thread) (ie 3 days ago) and I wrote (partial):<br />--------------------------------------------<br />r. rowleyFeb 22, 2012 06:27 AM<br />Okay I decided to get JUST A TAD into a Hebrew feature, but NOT the only Hebrew feature of the Brokaw/NY Post text. It's highly accessible, in my opinion. Take a look here at this version of the (PRINTED)Hebrew alphabet ("aleph bet"):<br />http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Aleph-Bet/aleph-bet.html<br /><br />The only thing omitted there is that 5 letters have special end-of-word forms ("sofit"), forms that are distinct. But for our present purposes this will do just fine.<br /><br />First look at all the stokes/stroke segments that are HORIZONTAL (and straight).<br />You will notice sooner or later that in this, the traditional style of letter presentation (call it a 'font'), the horizontal strokes are VERY thick. As much at twice as thick as corresponding<br />VERTICAL (and straight)strokes*.<br /><br />Hebrew has a number of letters that resemble, to one degree or another, our letter 'T'. That is: they have a sort of cross bar[...]<br />==================================================<br />So in that post, the VERY FIRST ONE dealing in detail with my Hebrew hypothesis, I say:<br />------------<br />You will notice sooner or later that in this, the traditional style of letter presentation (call it a 'font'), the horizontal strokes are VERY thick.<br />================================================<br />"traditional style of letter presentation". THAT'S what's distinctively Hebrew (actually pseudoHebrew) about the lettering in the Brokaw text.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-29592640334842413482012-02-26T15:37:31.805-08:002012-02-26T15:37:31.805-08:00Partial post by Mister Lake"
-----------
YOU ...Partial post by Mister Lake"<br />-----------<br />YOU wrote that "he is an expert nevertheless" and I commented on experts.<br />==========================================================<br />Okay, there's a difference between/among saying:<br /><br />1) person A admits that person B is an expert.<br /><br />2) person A admits that person B is an expert but only accepts part of what person B says (about a given matter. (Here that would be "Russian style" vs "Cyrillic style"; baseline open quotes as distinctively Russian vs baseline open quotes as being a convention of several European nations including Russia etc.)<br /><br />3) person A says that person B is an expert but lacks credentials etc.<br /><br />Don Foster, however he got into Mister Lake's doghouse, is a "widely recognized expert" on Shakespeare, forensic linguistics (and I don't know what else!). I'm not praising him, I'm not condemning him. I'm just trying to accurately label him, regardless of whether I agree with him in a given matter or not.<br />(I don't agree much with you Mister Lake but you ARE an expert in the history of Amerithrax, and plenty of other things too!)r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-60894590850297562102012-02-26T12:22:14.518-08:002012-02-26T12:22:14.518-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Mister Lake, you need ...Richard Rowley wrote: "<i>Mister Lake, you need to look up the word "informant" because it is by no means synonymous with the word "expert".</i>"<br /><br /><b>YOU</b> wrote that "he is an expert nevertheless" and I commented on experts.<br /><br />You are clearly not reading your own words, or you are just being argumentative.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-27926940228377998602012-02-26T12:16:35.756-08:002012-02-26T12:16:35.756-08:00Okay, in my previous post I jumped the gun (ie ass...Okay, in my previous post I jumped the gun (ie assumed Mister Lake was mischaracterizing me.....assumed based on past performance). I DO think that the printer is trying to SUGGEST that the printer might be an Israeli, and since a native Israeli normally IS originally taught in Hebrew, Mister Lake is right and I blundered in "correcting" him.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-21833528270828241322012-02-26T12:10:19.681-08:002012-02-26T12:10:19.681-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "Professor Foster ISN&#...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"Professor Foster ISN'T a "handwriting 'expert'" (to my knowledge), he's a forensic linguist. There is a difference."</i><br /><br />Agreed. So, maybe I should have written "<b>writing</b> 'experts'" not "<b>hand</b>writing 'experts'." And "The only difference with Don Foster is that he got upset because his <b>forensic linguist</b> findings were ignored by the FBI, and he decided to go public with his theory."<br /><br />The point was that Foster got upset because his findings were ignored, and that's why he went public. The fact that he was not the same kind of writing expert as the others is irrelevant to the point being made.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-33349036383899770412012-02-26T12:10:16.723-08:002012-02-26T12:10:16.723-08:00Last sentence by Mister Lake:
---------------
Your...Last sentence by Mister Lake:<br />---------------<br />Your suggestion that the writer of the anthrax letters was trying to make it look like he was original taught in Hebrew is unproved and appears to have no basis in reality.<br />==============================================================<br />I NOWHERE ever said that the writer "was original[lu] taught in Hebrew". How you cannot understand, after all my explanations, what my hypothesis is I find puzzling.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-34860049885422967592012-02-26T12:07:40.571-08:002012-02-26T12:07:40.571-08:00Partial post by Mister Lake:
-------------
Richard...Partial post by Mister Lake:<br />-------------<br />Richard Rowley also wrote: "I was using Foster PRIMARILY as an INFORMANT" and "But I would say he is an expert nonetheless."<br /><br />If there is one thing the Amerithrax case has proved it is that "experts" can be wrong. So, it's necessary to look at the facts. <br />----------------------------------------------------------<br />Mister Lake, you need to look up the word "informant" because it is by no means synonymous with the word "expert". You have shown no recognition whatsoever that you follow what I'm saying in this thread about Foster's article.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-78901339327624323622012-02-26T11:56:25.978-08:002012-02-26T11:56:25.978-08:00Mister Lake's post:
--------------------
I'...Mister Lake's post:<br />--------------------<br />I'm not criticizing the FBI for bringing in handwriting "experts" to get their opinions, because you can never tell where an "investigative lead" may come from. From what I understand, most "handwriting experts" disagreed with each other about the handwriting. The only difference with Don Foster is that he got upset because his findings were ignored by the FBI, and he decided to go public with his theory.<br />---------------------------------------------------<br />Professor Foster ISN'T a "handwriting 'expert'" (to my knowledge), he's a forensic linguist. There is a difference.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-38356421677143849202012-02-25T14:04:48.099-08:002012-02-25T14:04:48.099-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "If you will notice wha...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"If you will notice what I have written so far, you will see that I explicitly state that I am talking about the printed (I should have added "traditional printed") Hebrew letters only .."</i><br /><br />Hmm. It took you awhile to come up with that argument, didn't it?<br /><br />You're still not talking about how someone learns to PRINT Hebrew in school. They don't use brushes in school. They don't trace over strokes in letters to make them wider or to make them look like brush strokes.<br /><br />And, any adult should know that printing on a letter or envelope <b>in any language</b> using a pen or pencil isn't done the same way as is seen in brush-calligraphy.<br /><br />In the olden days, English writers would use quill pens which left distinctive wide and narrow lines vaguely similar to brush strokes. You can see it in "We The People" at the beginning of the Constitution. And, any adult should know that "printing" as is done on books and newspapers involves many different "fonts." Some fonts combined wide and narrow lines. They have NOTHING to do with the way an average person writes with a pencil or ball point pen <b>in any language</b>. <br /><br /><i>"So if you ARE trying to print something in Latin letters and yet give it a 'pseudoHebrew' style, the way to go is to follow the thickness/thinness style of that first "book print" Aleph, and to do that for ALL the letters which you wish to give that style."</i><br /><br />That's just plain absurd!<br /><br />And, the writer of the anthrax letters did NOT do it with ALL the letters. The writer wasn't consistent with highlighting A's and T's. The T's in DEATH are not highlighted. The A in TAKE is not highlighted, neither is the A in AMERICA or the second A in ALLAH nor the A in ISRAEL.<br /><br />Your concocted explanation just makes things worse. It's clear your theory doesn't fit the facts.<br /><br />You should spend some more time on dreaming up a better explanation for why you wrote what you did. It's clear you just didn't realize the difference between brush-calligraphy and everyday writing with a pen or pencil.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-9149891603447476522012-02-25T13:37:06.962-08:002012-02-25T13:37:06.962-08:00I won't be able to post any more today, but an...I won't be able to post any more today, but anyone who is interested in the importance given by the Jewish religion/society to letters and letter forms, might look here:<br /><br />http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Aleph-Bet/Aleph/aleph.html<br /><br />Of the three forms of the letter Aleph given at the very top, I was talking about the book print one (far left). That's the traditional one, but of course modern writing implements like pens and pencils make it less attractive for someone in a hurry. But it is preferred for aesthetic and religious purposes and retains the 'distinctively Hebrew' quality. So if you ARE trying to print something in Latin letters and yet give it a 'pseudoHebrew' style, the way to go is to follow the thickness/thinness style of that first "book print" Aleph, and to do that for ALL the letters which you wish to give that style.r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-46503388793840759072012-02-25T13:21:40.433-08:002012-02-25T13:21:40.433-08:00I had thought to continue to expound my Hebrew sub...I had thought to continue to expound my Hebrew subhypothesis, but I see that in the interim Mister Lake has seen fit to attack a hypothesis not even halfway out of the bottle. So<br />(Mister Lake)<br />--------------<br />Richard Rowley wrote "1)straight horizontal lines tend to be extra thick [when writing Hebrew}"<br /><br />Wow! Don't you realize that is because they are BRUSH STROKES? When writing with a modern pen, as was done on the anthrax letters, people writing in Hebrew do NOT make any lines "extra thick."<br />------------------------------------------------<br />If you will notice what I have written so far, you will see that I explicitly state that I am talking about the printed (I should have added "traditional printed") Hebrew letters only (ie not the cursive which follows this pattern not at all and is more interested in efficiency, rather than aesthetics).<br /><br />Though Mister Lake is probably right that the ORIGIN of different thicknesses may have been due to the use of brushes (I think the same could be said of Chinese, Arabic and many ornate scripts), he is wrong in thinking, as he evidently does, that the use of these traditional motifs (varying thicknesses in strokes) is restricted to the use of brushes. One is struck, among other things, by the appearance of these traditional letter forms in stained glass, if one passes by a synogogue/ex-synogogue in a city. Here for example: http://revpatrickcomerford.blogspot.com/2012/01/introducing-jewish-spirituality.html<br />(scroll 1/3 way down page to see stained glass window with Hebrew inscription).<br />(End Part 1)r. rowleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-22842135365555117852012-02-24T06:39:01.995-08:002012-02-24T06:39:01.995-08:00BugMaster wrote: "What would you prefer? No p...BugMaster wrote: <i>"What would you prefer? No posts?"</i><br /><br />Except for yours, that's what I got this morning. No posts.<br /><br />My comment was a way to show people that Mr. Rowley was posting in various places on this thread. I wanted people to look for his posts.<br /><br />I would think that most people who aren't visiting this thread for the first time would just go to the end and check to see what has been added at or near the bottom.<br /><br />I was concerned that people might not look for posts that come in as replies to posts much earlier in this thread.<br /><br />I <b>really</b> want people to read Mr. Rowley's explanation of who he relied upon as an authority and particularly his explanation of why some of the characters in the media letter were traced over. <br /><br />I think it's the first time I've ever gotten any Anthrax Truther to fully explain his reasoning. It's VERY illuminating. And, while I expected something bizarre, I never expected anything <i>that</i> bizarre. <br /><br />And this blog is a record of it!<br /><br />BTW, I have no need to use this blog to "validate" myself. I have a web site for that. ;-)<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-74938434275334404402012-02-23T19:14:30.309-08:002012-02-23T19:14:30.309-08:00"NINE new posts came in from Mr. Rowley overn..."NINE new posts came in from Mr. Rowley overnight!"<br /><br /> Oh now now Ed!<br /> <br /> What would you prefer? No posts? Then I suppose you could endlessly post message after message validating yourself.<br /><br /> Now what fun would that be?BugMasternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7831518087498541513.post-73960173754026793532012-02-23T08:37:10.402-08:002012-02-23T08:37:10.402-08:00Richard Rowley wrote: "In other words, the FB...Richard Rowley wrote: <i>"In other words, the FBI administrators give the US attorney administrators THEIR take on a case, tell them how solid they think it is etc. THEN the US attorney administator provides personnel accordingly."</i><br /><br />Not true. The US attorney administrator doesn't provide any FBI personnel. All he or she can do is request that the FBI provide more FBI agents to a case. <br /><br />And you fail to understand the difference between a SENIOR INVESTIGATOR like Lawrence Alexander, a task force chief like Edward Montooth, a field office chief like Washington Field Office Director Joseph Persichini and a top administrator like FBI Director Robert Mueller.<br /><br />Alexander and Montooth were both directly involved in the investigation, although Montooth probably did more of his work in the office coordinating the work by the people under him. Persichini and Mueller are primarily administrators, any not involved directly in the investigation.<br /><br />Rachel Lieber worked for the Department of Justice. Her chain of command is totally different and goes up to the Attorney General. The idea that anyone above Lieber would expect her to go into court with a high-profile case that wasn't a SOLID case is absurd. With a high-profile case, they'd want it to be MORE SOLID than an ordinary case.<br /><br />Richard Rowley also wrote: <i>"a solid majority either thinks that that latter case falls short of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" metric or thinks the case very weak."</i><br /><br />Humorist Will Rogers once said, <b>"H'aint we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain't that a big enough majority in any town?"</b> <br /><br />You're talking about people who go on-line <b>to argue against the government</b>. So, naturally there would be a majority that disbelieves the government.<br /><br />The people who agree with the government (or who have no opinions) have no reason to go on line to argue. They have other things to do.<br /><br />I'm about the only exception because I find it fascinating to discuss the case with people who have other theories. (1) It helps me refine my understanding of the case. You don't really learn much from people who agree with you. (2) I'm fascinated by the psychology of True Believers and conspiracy theorists, and I enjoy probing their beliefs to see what they actually think. (3) I enjoy arguing facts against beliefs to see how those who use only beliefs will counter the facts. (4) I want to leave a written record on the Internet showing how Anthrax Truthers try to ignore or distort the facts. (5) Arguing with Anthrax Truthers helps me refine my arguments while also avoiding making statements that they can twist and distort. It helps me with the writing of my book, since I want my book to debunk all the false claims from Anthrax Truthers.<br /><br />EdEd Lakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00517078636884309733noreply@blogger.com