Listener Review of
Michael Horn Jeff Ritzmann
Hey Mr. Horn,
I was informed via the web that you were going to be engaging in a couple of debates with critics in the next few days and I wanted you to know that I was going to be listening with interest.
What follows are a few of my impressions regarding the first debate with Mr. Ritzmann (http://www.kevinsmithshow.com/archives/61208.wma). I await, with some eager anticipation, your debate with K.K. Korff. I will write you another analysis following same.
As you know, my jury is still out with regard to Mr. Meier, and has been out since I reviewed your DVD lo these many years ago now. (http://www.rense.com/general51/dvd.htm)
Your critics never seem to answer your points and don't appear to have your talent for sticking to the issues at hand before steering off into smirks, innuendo, and cheap shots. Mr. Ritzmann seems to cleave to this trend, and so makes no points with me.
My impressions follow and are time-stamped for reference:
16:06 Your opponent is quite clear that he is convinced by others first before giving you a fair hearing. I've seen no competent critique Ritzmann alludes to regarding the quality of M's predictions. What's Mr. Ritzmann talking about? You seem to be the only one providing real citation, rational thinking, and quality of same... I'm reminded of a debate between Joe Nickel and Stanton Friedmann...
22:34 You have to laugh at the irony. Ritzmann complains about over-analysis of details when YOU would be the one expected to complain in that regard. LOL!
37:41 You're doing a much better job of defending your position than he is trying to take it down. He comes across as canted and recalcitrant because his mind is already made up on core issues. His criticisms seem abundantly biased to that. He pole vaults over tick-droppings and attempts to spin your quality testimony and evidence his way. He reminds me of a less glib Tony Snow or Karl Rove.
39:09 Smith was in arrears to admonish you for "personal attacks"... you were providing a rebuttal to smarmy insinuations that you are a dupe of charlatans... or their comrade! I thought you were remarkably restrained! I'd have un-holstered pistols!
44:55 Great call torpedoing Mr. Ritzmann's intimated mendacious (venal) intent regarding the publishing of a book... and I point out that it is just fine when triple "K" publishes on the other side. Wonderful! You're winning handily so far.
50:15 Smith is decidedly wrong regarding his perception regarding Malin's vetted testimony! It's not the point Malin fails to say that there are beam-landers in the photo! The point is he can't conceive of how the pictures are made! Is Mr. Smith's mind made up, too? It would appear so.
51:15 Your opponent makes some scurrilously veiled and oblique accusations on YOUR character! Moreover, he offers no facts, just his interpretations and the spin of an obviously already made-up mind. Cheezy! You continue to show restraint! Good show!
70:45 Mr. Ritzmann implies that M. developed his pictures himself... didn't "M" send these out for same?
78:53 Uh -- your page (http://www.theyfly.com/newsflash5/tree.htm) and explication is bigger (better) than his page (http://www.kevinsmithshow.com/ritzmann.htm) and explication. His selection of photos seemed cherry picked to make his canted points... which by themselves were murky, interpreted, and unconvincing. Your explanations, moreover, are clear that the jury is still way out... if tending to the plaintive, yourself. By the way, please number the page photos so the audience is not having to guess at which one is being discussed...
101:30 "Just because an *accomplice* hasn't come forward [...in all this time!], doesn't mean there isn't one..." Gawd but what a stupidly canted thing to say, while he seems to be presuming that one coming forward NOW, would, of needs, be legitimate. Mr. Ritzmann really has nothing to add does he!
112:45 His ending summation is a repetition of "that says it all," which he used numerous times... much like Posner's "case closed" or Nickels' "...Period"! Empty, meaningless bluster. There is no "period"! There is no "closed case." "That says it all..." says nothing at all.
Verily, you trounced him on all points...I would call you the clear Victor in this debate. Moreover, he got mad on one occasion... always the signal of the weaker argument.
I'd like to be able to say something nice about your opponent... but I can't. His cherry picking, reflexive sneer, and cheap-shot giggles don't improve, in any way, his less than convincing presentation. Break a leg with Mr. Korff! I'll be listening.
AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/
U F O M a g a z i n e --