Gopi wrote:Miles is battle-weary and a bit cranky about criticism, having spent quite a lot of time fighting off a lot of actual slander on several forums, and occasionally does push things a bit too far.
Yes, I've seen the appalling way in which he's been attacked in the Amazon comments section and I understand how tiresome that can get, but there are always going to be critics and writers have to become battle hardened and ignore the shills. From the Amazon comments alone I could see how dangerous they think Miles is and that, in itself, is a better endorsement of his work than a thousand positive sickly sweet praises of his name.
I think Miles needs to give CF the benefit of the doubt and not see people on here as his enemies. I have pretty much every paper he's ever written and if I had some money I'd be dropping some payment to his web kitty account. I hope to rectify that one day to truly show my appreciation of all his hard work over the years (same goes for SC).
Gopi wrote:If we all sit around nitpicking then everything gets stuck in circles and the purpose of all the psyops in the world will have been achieved.
There's a difference between nitpicking and constructive criticism. If one of Miles' paper has an obvious flaw in it, or an inaccurate assumption has been made, isn't it better to point that out so that it can be adjusted?
Gopi wrote:After all that is the purpose of a psyop, to prevent original research into the truth, and to prevent the researchers from communicating and working together.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of a psyop. It isn't to prevent original research as can be attested to by the history of revisionism. The PTB simply don't care about the minor percentage of original writers and if they communicate with each other or not. As long as the vast majority of people believe in the Big Lie they don't give two hoots about the research community.
Gopi wrote:He is a genuine researcher.
Has anyone here said that he isn't? I appreciate your attempting to support Miles, but it really is unnecessary.
Admins - maybe the title of this thread needs to be changed to something like "Miles W Mathis research papers" so that it sounds less critical?
As for the reply to Simon from Miles that the "slander" should be removed, I'm afraid Miles is going to have be a lot more specific. A general accusation of libel (the correct legal term) does no-one any good.