From the Jim Campbell, Captain Zoom archives (all of 6 years ago)

Juan Jimenez wrote:

Juan, I can see you making a claim for fighting the good fight. However,
you are delusional if you think your association with Jim has helped your
reputation.

Stick to your day job, a psychoanalist you are not. The difference between
my conclusion and yours is that you're basing it on the product of your
imagination, I'm basing mine on my personal, verifiable experience. Who's
really delusional here?

Juan,

I don't know you or Campbell. I have specific criticisms of Campbell, I
have few criticisms of you, other than questioning your choice to
associate with Campbell and maybe your celebration of Bede.

My opinions are based on what you and Campbell have written and my one
lengthy phone conversation with Campbell.

I'm not part of any conspiracy, but I have yet to find one person that
has not reached the same conclusions I have about Campbell when
presented with the facts - not my opinions - but the facts.

I have not been influenced by anyone on RAH. I don't normally care what
other think. However, if everybody reaches the same conclusions, that is
consensus. A consensus can be wrong, but you at least have to recognize
that you are a dissenting voice in the crowd.

In an earlier post, I suggested that your reputation is at risk as a
consequence of your association with Campbell. I might have overshot
the mark, a bit.

If your reputation is established by those that have no knowledge of
Campbell's behavior and history, you are probably safe. It's a numbers
game. However, it is a game you are winning due to ignorance.

Those that have surveyed Campbell's life and career are very unlikely to
see how you could benefit from such an association and are very likely
to judge you based on your association with Campbell.

Your response to criticisms of Campbell predictably fall in a couple of
categories. You either suggest the party is lying or state that you
don't care about the facts presented.

In my case, you not only suggested that my interpretation of my
conversation with Campbell might be biased, you questioned just about
every element of my story. That's fine. It just looks a bit silly
when you could confirm the basic facts - if you wanted to.

The fact is, you don't want to. You don't want to confront Campbell and
it looks like you want to keep your distance from any interaction that
might force you to comment on the facts, not just the opinions of others.

You won't comment on the facts, because the facts do not portray
Campbell in a favorable light when presented to any number of
independent-thinking individuals.

Juan, you and I are different.

I judge people not exclusively by how they treat me, but by how they
treat others over an extended expanse of time.

You, on the other hand, appear to judge Campbell based on how he has
treated you. That's fine...it just has consequences.

Jaun is the perfect example of "Don't confuse me with the facts, my
mind is already made up." In his case, you can judge him by his
associations but a more accurate assesment would be to judge him by how
he has interacted with so many on this group. Disagree with him on ANY
point and it becomes a war of words and he will never accept any fact
that doesn't agree with his conclusions. Campbell is but one example,
Bede is another great example, and the list goes on and on an on. I
finally realized that the only way to handle Jaun was to put in a block
that prevents any of his posts from showing up in my reader. His
replies simply don't appear anymore and I sure as hell don't miss them.