RE: Request for info source.

[Guest guest]

Hi Jim, Those are some thought provoking numbers! They certainly mean something. If you are able, could you please direct me to the source? I like to read about and ponder these exact type of things. My original attraction to Science, a quest for truth. This caused some confusion during my time in Catholic elementary school. I took a few years to understand that you need not apply the scientific method to religious matters. History is continuously opening before our eyes and it is really only the very present that is open to our own unadulterated interpretation, unlike the past. Of course, that interpretation varies from nation to nation in the school history books and so on. A precious little window. You also gave me "integrous" as the vocabulary word of the day! My wife will appreciate me thrusting this on you so she doesn't have to hear it Thank you, McCaffrey Project Manager Weavertown Group2 Dorrington Road, Carnegie, PA 15106Phone: Fax: -----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Jim H. White SSCSent: Friday, February 05, 2010 11:18 AMTo: iequality Subject: Re: LAWeekly False Light Rears Ugly Head Again, QuanTEM Labs, Okl  SharonOnly 15% of humans now living are integrous (they believe in the truth as better than the lie and have the courage to try to spread the truth). In North America, in 2002, the percentage was an even split; 50% believed in the truth and 50% believe in the lie. In 2009, only 45% of US Americans believed in the truth; we are losing ground here! Do not be surprised when people lie; be happy when they are integrous and work to promulgate the truth. May love and peace fill you and your family (of course you have to let go of responsibility for what others do and hold on to the responsibility for what you do)! Jim H. WhiteSystem Science Consulting Re: LAWeekly False Light Rears Ugly Head Again, QuanTEM Labs, Okl Thank you, Bob. I can take a lot. And I have had a lot dished out for speaking up about the deceit of ACOEM. But one thing I absolutely will not tolerate is false light writings of my husband and my children. VT crossed the line with that LAWeekly article and follow up. I can DOCUMENT 51 known false and false light writings in that LAWeekly article. And now, QuanTEM Labs has chosen to resurrect it for some reason. I do not even know the owners, Barnett or Jim Crane. I don't know their marketing people, Leavren or Barbara Holden. But I do know that it would not be an accident they did what they did at this point in time. It was cruel and mean spirited and it makes me question the integrity of their business, deeply. As my husband put it: From: MAKramerTo: dheimpelgmailCC: LOchoalaweeklySent: 8/1/2008 12:20:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight TimeSubj: Mold/LAWeeklyMr Heimpel,I would guess that the purpose of this email would not be a surprise to you. Your mold article that waspublished last week was riddled with inaccuracy and personal attacks. It has continued the nightmarethat I have lived for the last 6 years. I talked to you for only a few minutes and your seeming hiddenagenda and lack of compassion was apparent. Your article validated this initial suspicion; I only wishthat I had talked to you originally so that I could have warned Sharon not to trust you.You know what, though, I can take it, and you know Sharon can handle it, but what really gets us bothis the way you portrayed as the “starring victim.†She just started her first real job out of college,and she had to come back from lunch and explain this horrendous article to her new fellow employees.Of all involved in this article, she does not deserve this. Is this what you wanted to accomplish?Maybe this is your normal mode of operation, maybe the opportunity to be “creative†won out over thebasic concept of presenting the truth. Either way it defamed my family and I expect a publishedapology. Kramer In a message dated 2/2/2010 5:18:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, BobBsafety-epa writes:Sharon, I am surprised that this newspaper article got reprinted WITHOUT any fact checking.I have dealt with the media for almost 20 years. The junk that is passed off as "journalism" or "reporting" today is mostly disinformation, misleading statement or just plain made up "s!$%"Everyone I know who has ever been interviewed for a media statement has found themselves mis quoted and many facts distorted. I can sum this up by one reporter that I went after for a false and misleading story. His response was "we are in the business to sell newspapers-not to print the truth."Further, most media today is clearly directed as giving messages that support business viewpoints and not that of the average citizen. I would hope that directs whom ever assembled that newsletter to consider a retraction or restatement of both si de of the story. The reality is that litigation belongs in court and not in one side media circus. Bob

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it, contain

information that may be confidential and privileged. The

message is intended for a specific individual and purpose, and

its unintended use is prohibited by law. If you are not the

intended recipient you may not disseminate, distribute or copy

this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if

you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail

from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are

notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any

action in reliance on the contents of this information is

strictly prohibited.

Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions

to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company

cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising

from the use of this email or attachments.

[Guest guest]



The numbers come from a series of books by Dr. R. Hawkins, one of the few avatars alive at the emoment. His first book was Power vs. Force (where as a doctor and psychiatrist he mangles both meanings) and his most data-filled book is Truth vs. Falsehood. His most readable book is quite likely Transcending the Levels of Consciousness. The most data is in Truth vs. Falsehood, however. If you decide to get any of his books we should talk off line, after you have read some. He is a hard read but, in my opinion, well worth the effort.

Jim H. White SSC

Re: LAWeekly False Light Rears Ugly Head Again, QuanTEM Labs, Okl

Thank you, Bob. I can take a lot. And I have had a lot dished out for speaking up about the deceit of ACOEM. But one thing I absolutely will not tolerate is false light writings of my husband and my children. VT crossed the line with that LAWeekly article and follow up.

I can DOCUMENT 51 known false and false light writings in that LAWeekly article. And now, QuanTEM Labs has chosen to resurrect it for some reason. I do not even know the owners, Barnett or Jim Crane. I don't know their marketing people, Leavren or Barbara Holden.

But I do know that it would not be an accident they did what they did at this point in time. It was cruel and mean spirited and it makes me question the integrity of their business, deeply.

As my husband put it:

From: MAKramerTo: dheimpelgmailCC: LOchoalaweeklySent: 8/1/2008 12:20:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight TimeSubj: Mold/LAWeekly

Mr Heimpel,

I would guess that the purpose of this email would not be a surprise to you. Your mold article that waspublished last week was riddled with inaccuracy and personal attacks. It has continued the nightmarethat I have lived for the last 6 years. I talked to you for only a few minutes and your seeming hiddenagenda and lack of compassion was apparent. Your article validated this initial suspicion; I only wishthat I had talked to you originally so that I could have warned Sharon not to trust you.

You know what, though, I can take it, and you know Sharon can handle it, but what really gets us bothis the way you portrayed as the “starring victim.†She just started her first real job out of college,and she had to come back from lunch and explain this horrendous article to her new fellow employees.Of all involved in this article, she does not deserve this. Is this what you wanted to accomplish?

Maybe this is your normal mode of operation, maybe the opportunity to be “creative†won out over thebasic concept of presenting the truth. Either way it defamed my family and I expect a publishedapology.

Kramer

In a message dated 2/2/2010 5:18:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, BobBsafety-epa writes:

Sharon,

I am surprised that this newspaper article got reprinted WITHOUT any fact checking.

I have dealt with the media for almost 20 years. The junk that is passed off as "journalism" or "reporting" today is mostly disinformation, misleading statement or just plain made up "s!$%"

Everyone I know who has ever been interviewed for a media statement has found themselves mis quoted and many facts distorted.

I can sum this up by one reporter that I went after for a false and misleading story. His response was "we are in the business to sell newspapers-not to print the truth."

Further, most media today is clearly directed as giving messages that support business viewpoints and not that of the average citizen.

I would hope that directs whom ever assembled that newsletter to consider a retraction or restatement of both si de of the story. The reality is that litigation belongs in court and not in one side media circus.

Bob

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it, contain information that may be confidential and privileged. The message is intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its unintended use is prohibited by law. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.

[Guest guest]

Jim, Truth versus Falsehood sounds like something I could read and I enjoy having a discussion about a book that someone shared. I usually find a hard read a good read. I've read several of Nietzsche's books and I would consider that my bondary, so if it's in there I'm good. Thank you much, Mike McCaffrey Project Manager Weavertown Group2 Dorrington Road, Carnegie, PA 15106Phone: Fax: -----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Jim H. White SSCSent: Friday, February 05, 2010 7:13 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Request for info source.  The numbers come from a series of books by Dr. R. Hawkins, one of the few avatars alive at the emoment. His first book was Power vs. Force (where as a doctor and psychiatrist he mangles both meanings) and his most data-filled book is Truth vs. Falsehood. His most readable book is quite likely Transcending the Levels of Consciousness. The most data is in Truth vs. Falsehood, however. If you decide to get any of his books we should talk off line, after you have read some. He is a hard read but, in my opinion, well worth the effort. Jim H. White SSC Re: LAWeekly False Light Rears Ugly Head Again, QuanTEM Labs, Okl Thank you, Bob. I can take a lot. And I have had a lot dished out for speaking up about the deceit of ACOEM. But one thing I absolutely will not tolerate is false light writings of my husband and my children. VT crossed the line with that LAWeekly article and follow up. I can DOCUMENT 51 known false and false light writings in that LAWeekly article. And now, QuanTEM Labs has chosen to resurrect it for some reason. I do not even know the owners, Barnett or Jim Crane. I don't know their marketing people, Leavren or Barbara Holden. But I do know that it would not be an accident they did what they did at this point in time. It was cruel and mean spirited and it makes me question the integrity of their business, deeply. As my husband put it: From: MAKramerTo: dheimpelgmailCC: LOchoalaweeklySent: 8/1/2008 12:20:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight TimeSubj: Mold/LAWeeklyMr Heimpel,I would guess that the purpose of this email would not be a surprise to you. Your mold article that waspublished last week was riddled with inaccuracy and personal attacks. It has continued the nightmarethat I have lived for the last 6 years. I talked to you for only a few minutes and your seeming hiddenagenda and lack of compassion was apparent. Your article validated this initial suspicion; I only wishthat I had talked to you originally so that I could have warned Sharon not to trust you.You know what, though, I can take it, and you know Sharon can handle it, but what really gets us bothis the way you portrayed as the “starring victim.†She just started her first real job out of college,and she had to come back from lunch and explain this horrendous article to her new fellow employees.Of all involved in this article, she does not deserve this. Is this what you wanted to accomplish?Maybe this is your normal mode of operation, maybe the opportunity to be “creative†won out over thebasic concept of presenting the truth. Either way it defamed my family and I expect a publishedapology. Kramer In a message dated 2/2/2010 5:18:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, BobBsafety-epa writes:Sharon, I am surprised that this newspaper article got reprinted WITHOUT any fact checking.I have dealt with the media for almost 20 years. The junk that is passed off as "journalism" or "reporting" today is mostly disinformation, misleading statement or just plain made up "s!$%"Everyone I know who has ever been interviewed for a media statement has found themselves mis quoted and many facts distorted. I can sum this up by one reporter that I went after for a false and misleading story. His response was "we are in the business to sell newspapers-not to print the truth."Further, most media today is clearly directed as giving messages that support business viewpoints and not that of the average citizen. I would hope that directs whom ever assembled that newsletter to consider a retraction or restatement of both si de of the story. The reality is that litigation belongs in court and not in one side media circus. BobThis e-mail and any files transmitted with it, contain information that may be confidential and privileged. The message is intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its unintended use is prohibited by law. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it, contain

information that may be confidential and privileged. The

message is intended for a specific individual and purpose, and

its unintended use is prohibited by law. If you are not the

intended recipient you may not disseminate, distribute or copy

this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if

you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail

from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are

notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any

action in reliance on the contents of this information is

strictly prohibited.

Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions

to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company

cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising

from the use of this email or attachments.

[Guest guest]

,

Another book that is a must read for anyone wanting to understand truths vs. falsehoods as it relates to the IAQ industry is "Doubt Is Their Product, How Industry's Assault On Science Threatens Your Health". The book is authored by s, head of OSHA.

http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt_is_Their_Product.cfm

Fascinating read. You will probably even recognize the names of some of the characters in the book. Too bad, but Dr. s's book is not a fiction.

After you read it, the Big Tobacco RICO ruling that is over 1600 pages, is the next fascinating read that will take on whole new meaning regarding IAQ, in conjunction with understanding what Dr. s spells out about truth vs. fiction.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2009/05/dc-circuit-affirms-phillip-morris-case.php

Sharon

Jim,

Truth versus Falsehood sounds like something I could read and I enjoy having a discussion about a book that someone shared. I usually find a hard read a good read. I've read several of Nietzsche's books and I would consider that my bondary, so if it's in there I'm good.

Thank you much,

Mike McCaffrey

Project Manager

Weavertown Group

2 Dorrington Road, Carnegie, PA 15106

Phone:

Fax:

-----Original Message-----From: iequality [mailto:iequality ]On Behalf Of Jim H. White SSCSent: Friday, February 05, 2010 7:13 PMTo: iequality Subject: Re: Request for info source.

 The numbers come from a series of books by Dr. R. Hawkins, one of the few avatars alive at the emoment. His first book was Power vs. Force (where as a doctor and psychiatrist he mangles both meanings) and his most data-filled book is Truth vs. Falsehood. His most readable book is quite likely Transcending the Levels of Consciousness. The most data is in Truth vs. Falsehood, however. If you decide to get any of his books we should talk off line, after you have read some. He is a hard read but, in my opinion, well worth the effort.

Jim H. White SSC

Re: LAWeekly False Light Rears Ugly Head Again, QuanTEM Labs, Okl

Thank you, Bob. I can take a lot. And I have had a lot dished out for speaking up about the deceit of ACOEM. But one thing I absolutely will not tolerate is false light writings of my husband and my children. VT crossed the line with that LAWeekly article and follow up.

I can DOCUMENT 51 known false and false light writings in that LAWeekly article. And now, QuanTEM Labs has chosen to resurrect it for some reason. I do not even know the owners, Barnett or Jim Crane. I don't know their marketing people, Leavren or Barbara Holden.

But I do know that it would not be an accident they did what they did at this point in time. It was cruel and mean spirited and it makes me question the integrity of their business, deeply.

As my husband put it:

From: MAKramerTo: dheimpelgmailCC: LOchoalaweeklySent: 8/1/2008 12:20:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight TimeSubj: Mold/LAWeekly

Mr Heimpel,

I would guess that the purpose of this email would not be a surprise to you. Your mold article that waspublished last week was riddled with inaccuracy and personal attacks. It has continued the nightmarethat I have lived for the last 6 years. I talked to you for only a few minutes and your seeming hiddenagenda and lack of compassion was apparent. Your article validated this initial suspicion; I only wishthat I had talked to you originally so that I could have warned Sharon not to trust you.

You know what, though, I can take it, and you know Sharon can handle it, but what really gets us bothis the way you portrayed as the “starring victim.†She just started her first real job out of college,and she had to come back from lunch and explain this horrendous article to her new fellow employees.Of all involved in this article, she does not deserve this. Is this what you wanted to accomplish?

Maybe this is your normal mode of operation, maybe the opportunity to be “creative†won out over thebasic concept of presenting the truth. Either way it defamed my family and I expect a publishedapology.

Kramer

In a message dated 2/2/2010 5:18:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, BobBsafety-epa writes:

Sharon,

I am surprised that this newspaper article got reprinted WITHOUT any fact checking.

I have dealt with the media for almost 20 years. The junk that is passed off as "journalism" or "reporting" today is mostly disinformation, misleading statement or just plain made up "s!$%"

Everyone I know who has ever been interviewed for a media statement has found themselves mis quoted and many facts distorted.

I can sum this up by one reporter that I went after for a false and misleading story. His response was "we are in the business to sell newspapers-not to print the truth."

Further, most media today is clearly directed as giving messages that support business viewpoints and not that of the average citizen.

I would hope that directs whom ever assembled that newsletter to consider a retraction or restatement of both si de of the story. The reality is that litigation belongs in court and not in one side media circus.

Bob

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it, contain information that may be confidential and privileged. The message is intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its unintended use is prohibited by law. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it, contain information that may be confidential and privileged. The message is intended for a specific individual and purpose, and its unintended use is prohibited by law. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.