BLIND TOO?
On his home page Gary Posner published the following statement:
|
"In the spring of 1998, Florida "psychic detective"
Noreen Renier (and/or an associate) launched an
attack upon me as a result of some of my published writings about
her. Although venomous and irrational (at least I can't follow much
of the "reasoning," especially with regard to the "lie" that I am
accused of telling), readers are encouraged to view the site. And
perhaps some of you can explain to me what errors of fact I am
supposedly guilty of (if you read my original material, you will
note that much of the criticism of me is presented without benefit
of full context). As is always my policy, I will gladly make every
effort to rectify any factual errors in my reporting."
|
So I have presented his lies and deceits without the benefit of full
context? The full context he waffles on about is mere padding. Don't be
fooled by this. Read my articles and then read his complete articles.
Perhaps, like James Randi, he's trying to get me to infringe on copyright.
No amount of extraneous narrative will hide his dirty-work.
It gets worse. Mr. Posner seems to be under the
impression that Noreen Renier possibly wrote this "venomous and
irrational" article. I have since appended my copyright notice on each
page just in case there is someone else who could possibly make the same
mistake.
Apart from every page being written in the third person, there is the
following text which is prominently featured on page 2:
|
While being interviewed by Joan Rivers on TV, Ms Renier said that
she did not advertise and did not solicit work. I asked Ms Renier
about this, she said:[added emphasis]
"I do not solicit work on headline crimes. I do
however as a businesswoman send packets of information about my
work to agencies that might be able to use me on an old unsolved
crimes."
Standard business
practice. |
Is it likely that Gary Posner is deliberately
citing Noreen Renier as the possible author of these articles for an
ulterior reason? I think so.
In light of the above Noreen Renier wrote Gary Posner requesting that
he correct the errors, pointing out that she was not an associate of mine,
nor was she associated with my website. See letter below (Underline added
for emphasis).
re: The recent posting on your web site
Dated June 2, 1998
Regarding your comments about the Duffie web site, you
should know that Mr. Duffie is not an associate of mine, nor do I
have any association with his site. In fact, as I understand
it, he is a magician and therefore we could call him a
professional associate of the Amazing Randi. However, unlike Randi
and you, it appears that Mr. Duffie is interested in the truth and
has taken strong interest in my work as a police psychic, thanks
to your site.
Since you say that you are willing to make corrections of any
inaccuracies, I'd appreciate it if you'd clear up this error. I
also want to thank you for all the publicity you are providing me.
You are doing for me what Randi did for Uri Geller. Please keep up
the good work.
Noreen
Renier |
In
response to the above, Posner said he would correct his errors that day.
He did make a change but it was not what Ms Renier had requested! Instead
he asserted in parenthesis:
...Noreen Renier (who has informed me that she is not
associated with Mr. Duffie). That is not what she said.
Posner also asked if he could publish Ms Renier's letter in the
forthcoming Tampa Bay Skeptics Report as a letter to the editor!
Ms Renier was forced to write a second letter:
No, you do not have my permission to put my e-mails to you, in
any publication you are involved in.
Now, I remember why I found you so repulsive. You can't tell a
truth. Please read my note to you again. I said,..."Mr. Duffie, is
not an associate of mine, nor do I have an association with his
site." I have "associated" with Mr. Duffie via e-mail. And when he
requested the interview and new pictures I was happy to oblige.
You say you are willing to make corrections of any
inaccuracies; do so!
|
Posner once again amended his text. This time he ignored Ms Renier's
second letter and used only the information given in the first. Why did it
take two letters to make partial progress?
So here is Posner's amended text as it stands at the present time, with
the begrudged amendment underlined.
In the spring of 1998, a character by the name of Peter Duffie
launched an attack upon me as a result of some of my published writings
about Florida "psychic detective" Noreen Renier. Renier informs me
that "Mr. Duffie is not an associate of mine, nor do I have an
association with his site." Although venomous and irrational...
As a result of the above, Police Psychic, Ms Renier
sent her 2 letters to Psy-Zone so that the truth could be published.
You've just read it.
copyright 1998 Peter
Duffie
[Note from Gary Posner (July 2006):
See my reply to
this ridiculous attack.]
|
![[Gary Posner]](Duffie_Renier_Posner1.jpg)
![[Alien Girl]](Duffie_Renier_aliengirl.gif)